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 .
Considering the response filed 7/2/26, claims 1-20 remain in the application for prosecution thereof. The 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn; however, the 35 USC 103 rejections have been maintained for the reasons provided below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1,3,5,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227).
Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches a method of fabricating a friction part based on C/C composite material. Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches forming a C/C preform, densifying and then impregnating with a sol-gel solution followed by drying and heat-treating steps. Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches forming a friction part with improved properties of low ear at low temperature [0016]. Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches impregnation and upon heating of the impregnated part forming particle of oxides [0032]-[0044].
Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) fails to teach C/C is a core component or a non-wear-surface of a core-liner brake stack and attaching these after coating thereof.
Linck (2020/0200227) teaches a brake stack including a rotor core and a friction liner including a first and second wear liner whereby the C/C core is infiltrated with the ceramic coating for wear performance. Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches attaching the wear liner to the core which would meet the claimed coupling [0002]-[0009].
Therefore, it would have bene obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have modified Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) C/C composite material to be utilized in a brake stack having a core component and treating the core components to improve wear properties.
Regarding claim 3, Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches oxides of titanium, yttrium, tantalum and hafnium (abstract and [0034]-[0035]) which would include TiO2 and Y2O3 (examples 2 and 6) and would meet the claimed nano ceramic binary oxide particulates and nano ceramic ternary oxide particulates.
Regarding claim 5, Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches oxides of titanium, yttrium, tantalum and hafnium (abstract and [0034]-[0035]) which would include TiO2 and Y2O3 (examples 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 6, Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches oxides of titanium, yttrium, tantalum and hafnium (abstract and [0034]-[0035]) which would include Ta2O5.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Kirkpatrick et al. (2019/0092698).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) are incorporated here.
Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) fails to teach the claimed nano ceramic binary oxide particles to include zirconium oxide (zirconia) or YSZ.
Kirkpatrick et al. (2019/0092698) teaches a carbon/carbon composite infiltrated with ceramic suspension including zirconia (zirconium oxide) or YSZ (abstract and [0005],[0010].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) C/C material to include zirconia or YSZ as evidenced by Kirkpatrick et al. (2019/0092698) with the expectation of providing improved wear characteristics.
Claims 2,7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Poteet et al. (10,767,059).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) are incorporated here.
Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) fails to teach the claimed nano ceramic binary oxide particles to include the recited claimed binary oxides as well as applying them by spraying or brushing.
Poteet et al. (10,767,059) teaches a carbon/carbon composite infiltrated with ceramic suspension including oxides of thulium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, samarium, europium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium erbium, ytterbium (col. 8, lines 20-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) C/C material to include ceramic suspension including oxides of thulium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, samarium, europium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium erbium, ytterbium as evidenced by Poteet et al. (10,767,059) with the expectation of providing improved wear characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, Poteet et al. (10,767,059) teaches applying the slurry by spraying or brushing (col. 1, lines 50-55).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Yaguchi et al. (10,670,099).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) are incorporated here.
Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) fails to teach the claimed nano ceramic binary oxide particles to include calcium silicate.
Yaguchi et al. (10,670,099) teaches friction materials for disc brake pad including calcium silicate (col. 6, lines 15-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) C/C material to include coating with a ceramic suspension including calcium silicate as evidenced by Yaguchi et al. (10,670,099) with the expectation of providing improved wear characteristics.
Claims 11,13,15,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) are incorporated here.
Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) fails to teach C/C is a core component or a non-wear-surface of a core-liner brake stack and attaching these after coating thereof and coating rivet holes with the ceramic solution.
Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) teaches composites and methods of forming composites having ceramic inserts. Johnson et al. (2012;/0118685) teaches forming recesses in the C/C preform and depositing ceramic powder in the recess and densifying and mechanically fastening the core to the wear layer by chemical means including rivets and in combination with through impregnation process (Fig. 3,[0011],[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) process to include coating the rivet holes with ceramic materials as evidenced by Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) with the expectation of providing wear resistance at the core/rivet interface.
Regarding claim 13, Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches oxides of titanium, yttrium, tantalum and hafnium (abstract and [0034]-[0035]) which would include TiO2 and Y2O3 (examples 2 and 6) and would meet the claimed nano ceramic binary oxide particulates and nano ceramic ternary oxide particulates.
Regarding claim 15, Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches oxides of titanium, yttrium, tantalum and hafnium (abstract and [0034]-[0035]) which would include TiO2 and Y2O3 (examples 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 16, Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) teaches oxides of titanium, yttrium, tantalum and hafnium (abstract and [0034]-[0035]) which would include Ta2O5.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) further in combination with Kirkpatrick et al. (2019/0092698).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) are incorporated here.
Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) fails to teach the claimed ceramic being zirconium oxide (zirconia) or YSZ.
Kirkpatrick et al. (2019/0092698) teaches a carbon/carbon composite infiltrated with ceramic suspension including zirconia (zirconium oxide) or YSZ (abstract and [0005],[0010].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) C/C material to include zirconia or YSZ as evidenced by Kirkpatrick et al. (2019/0092698) with the expectation of providing improved wear characteristics.
Claims 12,17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) further in combination with Poteet et al. (10,767,059).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) are incorporated here.
Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) fails to teach the claimed nano ceramic binary oxide particles to include the recited claimed binary oxides as well as applying them by spraying or brushing.
Poteet et al. (10,767,059) teaches a carbon/carbon composite infiltrated with ceramic suspension including oxides of thulium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, samarium, europium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium erbium, ytterbium (col. 8, lines 20-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) C/C material to include ceramic suspension including oxides of thulium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, samarium, europium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium erbium, ytterbium as evidenced by Poteet et al. (10,767,059) with the expectation of providing improved wear characteristics.
Regarding claim 12, Poteet et al. (10,767,059) teaches applying the slurry by spraying or brushing (col. 1, lines 50-55).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) further in combination with Yaguchi et al. (10,670,099).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) are incorporated here.
Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) fails to teach the claimed ceramic being calcium silicate.
Yaguchi et al. (10,670,099) teaches friction materials for disc brake pad including calcium silicate (col. 6, lines 15-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) in combination with Linck (2020/0200227) further in combination with Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) C/C material to include coating with a ceramic suspension including calcium silicate as evidenced by Yaguchi et al. (10,670,099) with the expectation of providing improved wear characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued the definition of binary oxides and ternary oxides and that the Examiner has misinterpreted the meanings thereof.
The Examiner agrees and has withdrawn the 35 USC 112 rejection.
Applicant argued that the Examiner did not consider the limitation of “wherein the first surface of the core component and the second non-wearing surface of the wear liner component meet to form an interface between the core component and the wear liner component” as the coating is directed toward the interface and not into the bulk of a composite.
The claims are not precluded from forming the coating into the bulk component which would also include the interface between whereby the core component and the wear liner meet “interface” upon attaching the core to the wear component.
Applicant argued Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) fails to teach coupling or attaching the wear liner to the core.
The Examiner appreciates Applicant pointing this typographical error reciting Jacquemard et al. (2013/0337180) when indeed the reference to Linck (2020/0200227) should have been recited.
Applicant argued regarding claim 3 and 13, that the Examiner failed to address the limitation of the binary oxide acting as a release agent between the core and wear liner.
The Examiner agrees. The Examiner presumed Applicant would recognize that if the same material is being applied to the same substrate that it would inherently act in a similar fashion and hence while the Examiner should have articulated this line of reasoning, the Examiner has taken the position that the binary oxides would also act as a release agent since both the materials and the component having the material applied thereto are the same.
Applicant argued the Examiner has failed to address the limitation of “coating an inner lining of each rivet hole of the plurality of rivet holes”.
The Examiner disagrees. As detailed above, Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) teaches composites and methods of forming composites having ceramic inserts. Johnson et al. (2012/0118685) teaches forming recesses in the C/C preform and depositing ceramic powder in the recess and densifying. Mechanically fastening with rivets in these recesses, which would include the claimed inner lining of the recess, would provide wear resistance at the core/rivet interface.
Applicant argued the Examiner failed its burden of using facts and reasoning to establish a prima facie conclusion of obvious and hence the rejection is incomplete and request the present rejection to be withdrawn.
The Examiner disagrees. A detailed above in the rejection and in the responses to Applicant’s arguments, it is clear that the rejection sets for and established a prima facie case of obviousness and therefore meets the burden of the Office in the examination process.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights