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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends, in Applicant Arguments filed 27th April 2026, that the “combination of Orr and Faccini fails to teach the specific microstructure and hardness profile as claimed” in Claim 1. This is not persuasive. Specifically, Facchini (US 8545994 B2) teaches a Co-P wear resistant coating with a “fine-grained” micro structure (see 11: 4-19). Fine grained is a crystalline and non-amorphous microstructure (see 15: Table 1, 11: 36-48). Facchini also teaches wherein the Co-P wear resistant coating undergoes precipitation hardening and a respective motivation for the process (“further increase in hardness”) (see 20: 1-10). Facchini also teaches wherein the resulting Co-Pm wear resistant coating exhibits a Vikers Hardness between 900 and 1050 HV (see 15: Table 1). New grounds for rejection, necessitated by amendment, as discussed below, can be seen further below.
Applicant contends, in Applicant Argument Filed 27th April 2026, that the “combination of Orr and Facchini fails to teach the recited thickness and structural complexity distinctions” in Claim 1. This is persuasive. Although Facchini teaches a Co-P wear resistant coating with a thickness averaging at least 100 micrometers (see 15: Table 1), Facchini fails to teach the structural complexity distinctions claimed in the amended Claim 1 (see Applicant Claims Filed 27th April 2026). Similarly, Orr (US 20140332330 A1) does not teach the structural complexity distinctions as claimed in the amended Claim 1. Thus, amended material necessitates new grounds for rejection, which can be seen below.
Applicant contends, in Applicant Argument Filed 27th April 2026, that amended “Claim 4 further distinguishes the invention by highlighting the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) mismatch of less than 0.1 ppm/degree C between the gray cast iron body and the coating”. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant identifies this property as a result of the “specific phosphorus content (8-12 wt.%) and the precipitation-hardening state”. As Facchini teaches a Co-P wear resistant coating with phosphorus content 8-12 wt.% (see 16: Table 1, Claim 1) and a precipitation hardening state (see 20: 1-10) this CTE mismatch property is inherent to the Co-P of Facchini in combination with a gray cast iron body, which is disclosed by Orr (see [0022]). It should be noted Facchini recognizes the importance of bond strength in relation to the Co-P coating (see 14: 29-43). New grounds for rejection, as necessitated by amendment discussed above, can be seen below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, amendments filed 27th April 2026 adds the limitation “non-amorphous” to the corrosion and wear-resistant coating. This limitation has insufficient support in the specification or figures.
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 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuckert et. al. (WO 2013075891 A1) in view of Facchini et. al. (US 8545994 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuckert discloses A brake disc, comprising: a body (1) having at least one braking surface (4); and a corrosion and wear-resistant coating electrodeposited on the at least one braking surface (see Fig. 1, [0004], [0017]), wherein the body (1) includes structural features (5) in the at least one braking surface (4) chosen from the group consisting of channels, slots, grooves, and holes that are open at the braking surface (4) (see Fig. 1, [0017]).
Kuckert does not disclose wherein 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, wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating has an average thickness of at least 100 µm, and a non-amorphous, precipitation hardened microstructure that includes wear resistant particles in a matrix.
Facchini teaches wherein an electrodeposited corrosion and wear-resistant coating comprises a precipitation-hardened cobalt-phosphorus (CoP) alloy (see 8:10-22, 20:1-10, Claim 1) and exhibits a Vickers hardness of from about 900 to about 1050 HV (see 15: Table 1), wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating has an average thickness of at least 100 µm (see 15: Table 1), and a non-amorphous, precipitation hardened microstructure that includes wear resistant particles in a matrix (see 6:22-29, 20: 1-10, 12: 4-12, 16: Table 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the electrodeposited corrosion and wear-resistant coating of Facchini with the brake disk of Kuckert in order to enhance fatigue performance, eliminate potential environmental issues, and improve the durability of corrosion and wear-resistant coatings (see US 8545994 B2 [Facchini]; 6: 46-56, 5: 50-63).
Regarding Claim 2, Kuckert discloses wherein the body 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 [0016]).
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, with a balance being cobalt (see 16: Table 1, Claim 1), wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating has a surface finish of less than 0.4 microns (see Abstract, 15: Table 2, Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuckert modified by Facchini teaches wherein the body includes gray cast iron (see WO 2013075891 A1 [Kuckert]; [0016]) and the wear-resistant particles include: boron carbide (B4C) (see US 8545994 B2 [Facchini]; [8: 10-33, 16: Table 1]); wherein the body and the erosion and wear resistant coating have a Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) mismatch of less than 0.1 ppm/°C (see US 8545994 B2 [Facchini]; Claim 1, 16: Table 1, 20:1-10, Response to Arguments section above, WO 2013075891 A1 [Kuckert]; [0016]).
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 8: 23-33, 16: Table 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Facchini teaches wherein the wear-resistant particles are boron carbine (B4C) particles, where the B4C particles are present in an amount of from about 10 to about 55 vol.% (see 8:22-33, 16: Table 1).
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 16: Table 1), the brake disc including a barrier layer disposed between the at least one braking surface and the erosion and wear resistant coating that is configured to reduce corrosion or degradation of the at least one braking surface (see 7: 58-67, 11: 49-56).
Regarding Claim 8, Facchini teaches wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating has an average thickness of less than about 500 (see 15: Table 1) wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating is disposed directly on the at least one braking surface without intermediate layers therebetween (see 7:57-58).
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 15: Table 1, 16: Table 1). It should be noted that although Facchini does not teach the results of this specific heat cycling test, these results are inherent to the material structure of the Co-P coating. As Facchini teaches the same Co-P coating disclosed as having undergone this heat cycling test, it is expected that the teaching of Facchini would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the structure as claimed in Claim 9.
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 16: Table 1). It should be noted that although Facchini does not teach the results of this specific corrosion test, these results are inherent to the material structure of the Co-P coating. As Facchini teaches the same Co-P coating disclosed as having undergone this corrosion test, it is expected that the teaching of Facchini would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the structure as claimed in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Kuckert modified by Facchini teaches wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating exhibits a bond strength to the braking surface of the body of at least about 60 Ksi (see US 8545994 B2 [Facchini]; 16: Table 1) and the wear-resistant coating exhibits a coefficient of friction of less than about 0.35 (see US 8545994 B2 [Facchini]; 15: Table 1). It should be noted that although Facchini does not teach the specific bond strength, these results are inherent to the material structure of the Co-P coating in combination with the Gray Cast Iron brake disc body, as discussed in the applications specification and related CTE property section of Applicants Arguments filed 27th April 2026. Thus, because Facchini teaches the Co-P coating (see US 8545994 B2 [Facchini]; 16: Table 1) and Kuckert teaches the Gray Cast Iron brake disc body (see WO 2013075891 A1 [Kuckert]; [0016]), in combination they inherently teach the bond strength of at least 60 Ksi.
Regarding Claim 21, Kuckert discloses A brake disc, comprising: a body (1) having at least one braking surface (4), wherein the body (1) comprises a base material of gray cast iron (see [0016]); and a corrosion and wear-resistant coating electrodeposited on the at least one braking surface (see [0004], [0017]), wherein the body (1) includes structural features (5) in the at least one braking surface (4) chosen from the group consisting of channels, slots, grooves, and holes that are open at the braking surface (4) (see Fig. 1).
Kuckert does not disclose wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating comprises a precipitation-hardened cobalt-phosphorus (CoP) alloy that includes a phosphorous content of from about 8 to about 12 wt.%, based on the total weight of the CoP alloy, with a balance being cobalt, and a non-amorphous, precipitation hardened microstructure that includes wear resistant particles in a matrix, wherein the wear resistant particles include boron carbide (B4C) and are present in an amount of from about 10 to about 55 vol.%, wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating has an average thickness of at least 100 µm and less than about 500 µm, wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating exhibits a Vickers hardness of from about 900 to about 1050 HV, a Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) mismatch with the body of less than 0.1 ppm/°C, a bond strength to the braking surface of the body of at least about 60 Ksi, and a coefficient of friction of less than about 0.35, wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating has a surface finish of less than 0.4 microns.
Facchini teaches wherein an electrodeposited corrosion and wear-resistant coating comprises a precipitation-hardened cobalt-phosphorus (CoP) alloy (see 8: 10-22, 20: 1-10, 16: Table 1, Claim 1) that includes a phosphorous content of from about 8 to about 12 wt.%, based on the total weight of the CoP alloy, with a balance being cobalt (see Claim 1, 16: Table 1), and a non-amorphous, precipitation hardened microstructure that includes wear resistant particles in a matrix (see 6:22-29, 20: 1-10, 12: 4-12, 16: Table 1), wherein the wear resistant particles include boron carbide (B4C) and are present in an amount of from about 10 to about 55 vol.% (see 8: 23-33, 16: Table 1), wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating has an average thickness of at least 100 µm and less than about 500 µm (see 15: Table 1), wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating exhibits a Vickers hardness of from about 900 to about 1050 HV (see 15: Table 1), a Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) mismatch with the body of less than 0.1 ppm/°C, a bond strength to the braking surface of the body of at least about 60 Ksi (see Table 16: 1, Claim 1), and a coefficient of friction of less than about 0.35 (see Table 15: 1), wherein the corrosion and wear-resistant coating has a surface finish of less than 0.4 microns (see Abstract, Claim 1). It should be noted, similar to the Claim rejections of 9 and 11, the CTE mismatch and the bond strength are a result of the material properties of the Co-P coating and the gray cast iron brake disc body. Thus, as Facchini teaches the Co-P coating as disclosed in the Applicant Specification and Kuckert discloses the gray cast iron brake disk body, the combination of these two will inherently have the CTE of less than 0.1 ppm/°C, and a bond strength of at least about 60 Ksi.
It would have been obvious It would have been obvious to combine the electrodeposited corrosion and wear-resistant coating of Facchini with the brake disk of Kuckert in order to enhance fatigue performance, eliminate potential environmental issues, and improve the durability of an electrodeposited corrosion and wear-resistant coating (see US 8545994 B2 [Facchini]; 6: 46-56, 5: 50-63).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Orr (US 20140332330 A1).
Orr teaches a brake disc coated with an electrodeposited wear and corrosion resistant layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights