Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/474,516

CORROSION AND WEAR-RESISTANT BRAKE DISC AND RELATED METHODS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 26, 2023
Examiner
IRVIN, SHEA WOODROW
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Honeywell International Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
1 granted / 2 resolved
-2.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -50% lift
Without
With
+-50.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
28
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 4th of March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “it is believed that search and examination of Claims 12-20 will note require different field of search or result in inapplicable prior art across different groups.” And “that it is unlikely examination of Claims 1-20 will raise different non-prior art issues that would otherwise impose a serious burden” (see Applicants Response Page 1-2) This is not found persuasive because, as described in the Office Action “Requirement for Restriction/Election” filed on the 20th of January 2026, search of Group I (Claims 1-11) and Group II (Claims 12-20) would require searches in different CPC classifications and separate unique text searches resulting in a serious search burden. Additionally, The MPEP says “the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required” (see MPEP 808.02). Therefore, in the immediate case, the examiner is not required to demonstrate a serious examination burden as a serious search burden has been demonstrated. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method for preparing a brake disc, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4th March 2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr (US 20140332330 A1) in view of Facchini et. al. (US 8545994 B2). Regarding Claim 1, Orr discloses a brake disc, comprising: a body (10) having at least one braking surface (24); and a corrosion and wear-resistant coating electrodeposited on the at least one braking surface (see Fig. 1B, [0003], [0007], [0044]). Orr does not disclose the corrosion and wear-resistant coating comprises a precipitation-hardened cobalt-phosphorus (CoP) alloy and exhibits a Vickers hardness of from about 900 to about 1050 HV. Facchini teaches an electrodeposited corrosion and wear-resistant coating wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating comprises a precipitation-hardened cobalt-phosphorus (CoP) alloy and exhibits a Vickers hardness of from about 900 to about 1050 HV (see 8:10-22, 15: Table-US-00001, 20:1-10). It would have been obvious to combine the electrodeposited corrosion and wear-resistant coating of Facchini with the brake disk of Orr in order to enhance fatigue performance and eliminate potential environmental issues with previously used electrodeposited coatings (see US 8545994 B2 [Facchini]; 5: 50-63). Regarding Claim 2, Orr discloses wherein the body (10) comprises a base material selected from: (i) gray cast iron; (ii) an aluminum alloy; (iii) a titanium alloy; and (iv) any combination of (i)-(iii) (see [0022]). Regarding Claim 3, Facchini teaches wherein the CoP alloy of the corrosion and wear-resistant coating comprises a phosphorous content of from about 8 to about 12 wt.%, based on the total weight of the CoP alloy (see 23: 8-21, Claim 1). Regarding Claim 4, Facchini teaches wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating further comprises wear-resistant particles of: (i) boron carbide (B4C); (ii)tungsten carbide (WC); (iii) titanium nitride (TiN); (iv) aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃); or (v) any combination of (i)-(iv) (see Page 16: Table-US-00003). Regarding Claim 5, Facchini teaches wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating comprises the wear-resistant particles in an amount of from about 10 to about 55 vol.% (see Page 16: Table-US-00003). Regarding Claim 6, Facchini teaches wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating further comprises wear-resistant boron carbine (B4C) particles, where the B4C particles are present in an amount of from about 10 to about 55 vol.% (see Page 16: Table-US-00003). Regarding Claim 7, Facchini teaches wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating further comprises a lubricant compound selected from (i) hexagonal boron nitride (hBN); (ii) molybdenum disulfide (MoS2); (iii) tungsten disulfide (WS2); (iv) graphene; (v) zirconia; and (vi) any combination of (i)-(v) (see Page 16: Table-US-00003). Regarding Claim 8, Facchini teaches wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating has an average thickness of: (i) at least about 100 µm; (ii) less than about 500 µm; or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (see 10: 21-42, Page 15: Table-US-00001). Regarding Claim 9, Facchini teaches wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating maintains a Vickers hardness of at least about 90% of an initial Vickers hardness though at least 50 cycles of being heating to and held at least 500 °C for a time of at least 5 seconds per cycle (see Page 15: Table-US-00001, Page 16: Table-US-00003). Regarding Claim 10, Facchini teaches wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating exhibits substantially no corrosion through at least 14 days of immersion in salt water at a temperature of at least 50°C (see Page 15: Table-US-00001, Page 16: Table-US-00003). Regarding Claim 11, Facchini teaches wherein: (i) the corrosion and wear-resistant coating exhibits a bond strength to the braking surface of the body of at least about 60 Ksi; (ii) the wear-resistant coating exhibits a coefficient of friction of less than about 0.35; or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (see Page 15: Table-US-00001). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571) 272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616 /Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-50.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month