DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to the application filed 11/10/23. Claims 1-20 are currently pending yet all are rejected as detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Chin in view of Hammond
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 11-12, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,276,969) in view of Hammond (U.S. Patent No. 5,299,667). Chin is directed to a method ad means for fastening friction wear pads. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited EPO Written Opinion. Hammond is directed to a carbon composite laminated structure. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Chin discloses a friction disk [see Fig. 1b, infra] comprising: a friction disk core; a first wear liner located over a first surface of the friction disk core; a second wear liner located over a second surface of the friction disk core; a washer; and a rivet, wherein the first wear liner and the second wear liner are coupled to the friction disk core via the rivet and wherein the washer is configured to be positioned at a distal end of the rivet, such that, in response to the distal end of the rivet forming a head, the head pushes against the washer thereby spreading a load of the head to at least one of the first wear liner or the second wear liner. See Fig. 1b, infra (annotated figure copied from EPO Written Opinion)
PNG
media_image1.png
364
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chin discloses all the limitations of this claim except for the rivet head being formed by being “upset,” i.e., employing the process of upsetting. While this is a method of making and not typically afforded patentable weight, for the sake of moving prosecution forward, this feature will be discussed here. Hammond discloses a friction disk [Figs. 5, 6] with two wear liners (11, 12), a washer (51, 54; 61, 65) and a rivet (50; 60) with a rivet head that pushes against the washer to spread a load to an adjacent wear liner, wherein the rivet head is deformed to provide the load. See col. 3, lines 1-5; col. 4, lines 64-68; Figs. 2-4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to “upset” the Chin rivet head because this is a manufacturing decision based on design considerations such as cost and materials used. The method of upsetting is well-known and commonly employed in the art.
Claim 2: Chin discloses that the washer is a first washer and further comprising: a second washer, wherein the second washer is configured to be positioned at a proximal end of the rivet adjacent a rivet head of the rivet, such that, in response to the distal end of the rivet being upset and forming the upset head, the rivet head pushes against the second washer thereby spreading a load of the rivet head to the other of the first wear liner or the second wear liner. See Fig. 1b, supra.
Claim 3: Hammond discloses that the washer is a Belleville washer and wherein the Belleville washer is installed in an inverted manner so that a frustoconical shape of the Belleville washer conforms to a frustoconical shape of a counterbore of an opening through which the rivet is positioned in order to couple the first wear liner and the second wear liner to the friction disk core. See col. 3, lines 29-45.
Claim 4: Hammond discloses that the washer is a flat washer and wherein the flat washer is malleable and configured to form a frustoconical shape of a counterbore of an opening through which the rivet is positioned in order to couple the first wear liner and the second wear liner to the friction disk core. See col. 3, lines 29-45.
Claim 5: Hammond discloses that the washer has a circumference that is substantially the same as the circumference as a rivet head of the rivet. See Fig. 6.
Claim 6: Hammond discloses that the washer has a circumference that is greater than the circumference as a rivet head of the rivet. See Fig. 5.
Claim 7: Hammond discloses that the washer is manufactured from a metal or a metal alloy. See col. 3, lines 29-45.
Claim 11: see claim 1 above. Chin further discloses the use of the friction disk in a multi-disk brake system. See col. 2, lines 62-68.
Claim 12: see claim 2 above.
Claim 13: see claim 3 above.
Claim 14: see claim 4 above.
Claim 15: see claim 5 above.
Claim 16: see claim 6 above.
Claim 17: see claim 7 above.
Claim 20: see claim 1 above.
Chin in view of Hammond
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin in view of Hammond and Schwab (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0147723). Schwab is directed to a snap disc device. See Abstract.
Claims 8 and 9: Chin and Hammond are relied upon as in claim 7 above but do not disclose that the washer is made from stainless steel or monel. Schwab discloses that the washer (10, 24), of the Belleville washer type, can be made of stainless steel or monel. See para. 048. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use these materials based on certain design considerations like cost/availability of stainless steel or the strength and corrosion resistance of monel.
Claim 10: Schwab discloses that the washer has a thickness of between 0.015 inches (0.0381 centimeter) and 0.060 inches (0.1524 centimeter). See Fig. 7. The thickness range would be obvious to one skilled in the art based on the expected size of vehicle brake discs and the rivets used therein.
Claims 18 and 19: see claims 8 and 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 January 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights