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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wear surfaces" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the wear surfaces" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-14 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 8.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the wear surfaces" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-20 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 15.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0150884 A1 to Kahn in view of US 4,011,055 to Hill et al. and in view of US 2021/0198159 A1 to Poteet et al.
Re-claim 1, Kahn teaches a method for providing oxidation protection for a carbon/carbon (C/C) friction disk, the method comprising: applying a first coating (such as a barrier coating, see paragraph 44) to a radially inward non-wear surface and a radially outward non-wear surface of the C/C friction disk; applying a second coating (such as a ceramic layer slurry, see paragraph 30) to the radially inward non-wear surface, the radially outward non-wear surface. Kahn further suggests that the method may be applied to surfaces (i.e. wear surfaces) of at least the pressure plate and/or the end plate (see paragraph 29), and that the oxidation protection system can be applied to various components of the brake system (see paragraph 26), which implies application to the wear surfaces of the friction disk. the wear surfaces of the densified C/C friction disk. However, Kahn fails to specifically teach the second coating applied the wear surface, or that the C/C friction disk is densified.
Hill et al. teach a carbon friction disk having both a non-wear surface and a wear surface an anti-oxidation coating, specifically a silicon powder over the entire surface (see column 2 lines 37-47) including the wear surface. Further layers are only applied to the non-wear surface (see column 2 lines 54-58) by covering up the wear (or rubbing) surface. This provides further motivation for applying at least some portion of the oxidation protection coating to the wear surface, thereby providing at least some protection against oxidation, as well as preventing oxidation to the non-wear surfaces via a transition point between the wear and non-wear surfaces. Therefore, as per the teachings of Hill et al. and as implied in Kahn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the second coating of Kahn to the wear surfaces as suggested by Hill et al. and as implied by Kahn (see paragraphs 26 and 29), thus providing some measure of oxidation protection to the wear surface.
Poteet et al. teach the known feature of using densified C/C friction disks in aircraft braking systems. This merely improves the strength and operational conditions for the C/C friction disk. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided as the substrate disk of Kahn a densified C/C friction disk as taught by Poteet et al., as this disk structure would have improved operating parameters.
Re-claims 2, 9 and 16, the first coating (i.e. barrier layer or pretreating composition) is a mixture including boron carbide (B4C) powder (paragraph 44, line 13), surfactants (see paragraph 41 line 14), and a carrier fluid (paragraph 44 lines 14-15), the carrier fluid is at least one of water, isopropyl alcohol, or hexane.
Re-claims 3, 10 and 17, the second coating (i.e. the ceramic layer slurry) is a mixture including aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), a solvent, and a carrier fluid and wherein the solvent is at least one of water, methyltrimethoxysilane, hexane, isopropyl alcohol, or polyvinyl alcohol (see paragraph 30 lines 1-12).
Re-claims 4, 11 and 18, Kahn further teaches applying a third coating (such as a sealant slurry, paragraph 46) to the to the radially inward non-wear surface and the radially outward non-wear surface of the densified C/C friction disk, the third coating is a mixture of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and a carrier fluid (see paragraph 46 line 4-5 and at least paragraphs 49 and 53-54). Paragraphs 53 -54 indicate the sealant phosphate glass can comprise Al2O3.
Re-claim 8, Kahn teaches a carbon/carbon (C/C) friction disk with oxidation protection and wear improvement, the C/C friction disk comprising: a C/C friction core 305; a first coating (such as a barrier coating, see paragraph 44), the first coating is applied to a radially inward non-wear surface and a radially outward non-wear surface of the C/C friction core; a second coating (such as a ceramic layer slurry, see paragraph 30), the second coating is applied to the radially inward non-wear surface, the radially outward non-wear surface. Kahn further suggests that the method may be applied to surfaces (i.e. wear surfaces) of at least the pressure plate and/or the end plate (see paragraph 29), and that the oxidation protection system can be applied to various components of the brake system (see paragraph 26), which implies application to the wear surfaces of the friction disk. the wear surfaces of the densified C/C friction disk. However, Kahn fails to specifically teach the second coating applied the wear surface, or that the C/C friction disk is densified.
Hill et al. teach a carbon friction disk having both a non-wear surface and a wear surface an anti-oxidation coating, specifically a silicon powder over the entire surface (see column 2 lines 37-47) including the wear surface. Further layers are only applied to the non-wear surface (see column 2 lines 54-58) by covering up the wear (or rubbing) surface. This provides further motivation for applying at least some portion of the oxidation protection coating to the wear surface, thereby providing at least some protection against oxidation, as well as preventing oxidation to the non-wear surfaces via a transition point between the wear and non-wear surfaces. Therefore, as per the teachings of Hill et al. and as implied in Kahn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the second coating of Kahn to the wear surfaces as suggested by Hill et al. and as implied by Kahn (see paragraphs 26 and 29), thus providing some measure of oxidation protection to the wear surface.
Poteet et al. teach the known feature of using densified C/C friction disks in aircraft braking systems. This merely improves the strength and operational conditions for the C/C friction disk. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided as the substrate disk of Kahn a densified C/C friction disk as taught by Poteet et al., as this disk structure would have improved operating parameters.
Re-claim 15, Kahn teaches a multi-disk brake system (see figure 1) comprising: a plurality of carbon/carbon (C/C) friction disks, each C/C friction disk of the plurality of C/C friction disks comprising: a C/C friction core 305; a first coating (such as a barrier coating, see paragraph 44), the first coating is applied to a radially inward non-wear surface and a radially outward non-wear surface of the C/C friction core; and a second coating (such as a ceramic layer slurry, see paragraph 30), the second coating is applied to the radially inward non-wear surface, the radially outward non-wear surface. Kahn further suggests that the method may be applied to surfaces (i.e. wear surfaces) of at least the pressure plate and/or the end plate (see paragraph 29), and that the oxidation protection system can be applied to various components of the brake system (see paragraph 26), which implies application to the wear surfaces of the friction disk. the wear surfaces of the densified C/C friction disk. However, Kahn fails to specifically teach the second coating applied the wear surface, or that the C/C friction disk is densified.
Hill et al. teach a carbon friction disk having both a non-wear surface and a wear surface an anti-oxidation coating, specifically a silicon powder over the entire surface (see column 2 lines 37-47) including the wear surface. Further layers are only applied to the non-wear surface (see column 2 lines 54-58) by covering up the wear (or rubbing) surface. This provides further motivation for applying at least some portion of the oxidation protection coating to the wear surface, thereby providing at least some protection against oxidation, as well as preventing oxidation to the non-wear surfaces via a transition point between the wear and non-wear surfaces. Therefore, as per the teachings of Hill et al. and as implied in Kahn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the second coating of Kahn to the wear surfaces as suggested by Hill et al. and as implied by Kahn (see paragraphs 26 and 29), thus providing some measure of oxidation protection to the wear surface.
Poteet et al. teach the known feature of using densified C/C friction disks in aircraft braking systems. This merely improves the strength and operational conditions for the C/C friction disk. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided as the substrate disk of Kahn a densified C/C friction disk as taught by Poteet et al., as this disk structure would have improved operating parameters.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0267595 A1 to Mazany in view of Hill et al. and in view of Poteet et al.
Re-claim 1, Mazany teaches a method for providing oxidation protection for a carbon/carbon (C/C) friction disk, the method comprising: applying a first coating (such as a barrier coating, see paragraph 94) to a radially inward non-wear surface and a radially outward non-wear surface of the C/C friction disk; applying a second coating (such as a first slurry or first phosphate glass composition, see paragraph 78) to the radially inward non-wear surface, the radially outward non-wear surface. Mazany further suggests that the method may be applied to surfaces (i.e. wear surfaces) of at least the pressure plate and/or the end plate (see paragraphs 77 and 79), and that the oxidation protection system can be applied to various components of the brake system (see paragraph 77), which implies application to the wear surfaces of the friction disk. the wear surfaces of the densified C/C friction disk. However, Mazany fails to specifically teach the second coating applied the wear surface, or that the C/C friction disk is densified.
Hill et al. teach a carbon friction disk having both a non-wear surface and a wear surface an anti-oxidation coating, specifically a silicon powder over the entire surface (see column 2 lines 37-47) including the wear surface. Further layers are only applied to the non-wear surface (see column 2 lines 54-58) by covering up the wear (or rubbing) surface. This provides further motivation for applying at least some portion of the oxidation protection coating to the wear surface, thereby providing at least some protection against oxidation, as well as preventing oxidation to the non-wear surfaces via a transition point between the wear and non-wear surfaces. Therefore, as per the teachings of Hill et al. and as implied by Mazany, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the second coating of Mazany to the wear surfaces as suggested by Hill et al. and as implied by Mazany, thus providing some measure of oxidation protection to the wear surface.
Poteet et al. teach the known feature of using densified C/C friction disks in aircraft braking systems. This merely improves the strength and operational conditions for the C/C friction disk. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided as the substrate disk of Mazany a densified C/C friction disk as taught by Poteet et al., as this disk structure would have improved operating parameters.
Re-claims 2, 9 and 16, the first coating (i.e. barrier layer, or pretreating composition) is a mixture including boron carbide (B4C) powder (paragraph 4 lines 28-30), surfactants (see paragraph 96 lines 9-11), and a carrier fluid (paragraph 95 line 10), the carrier fluid is a water.
Re-claims 3, 10 and 17, the second coating (i.e. the first phosphate glass or first slurry) is a mixture including aluminum (as part of the phosphate glass, see paragraphs 5-8), silicon (as part of the phosphate glass), a solvent (see paragraph 80 lines 20-23, in the form of DMF and water, which forms the solvent), and a carrier fluid (paragraph 80 line 5), the solvent includes water.
Re-claims 4, 11 and 18, Mazany further teaches applying a third coating (such as a second slurry, see paragraph 98) to the to the radially inward non-wear surface and the radially outward non-wear surface of the densified C/C friction disk, the third coating is a mixture of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and a carrier fluid. Mazany teaches the second slurry can have the same composition as the first slurry, see paragraph 99, which will include aluminum oxide and a carrier fluid, as indicated in the above rejection (see also paragraphs 5-8 and paragraph 80).
Re-claim 8, Mazany teaches a carbon/carbon (C/C) friction disk with oxidation protection and wear improvement, the C/C friction disk comprising: a C/C friction core; a first coating (such as a barrier coating, see paragraph 94), the first coating is applied to a radially inward non-wear surface and a radially outward non-wear surface of the C/C friction core; a second coating (such as a first phosphate glass composition, see paragraph 78), the second coating is applied to the radially inward non-wear surface, the radially outward non-wear surface. Mazany further suggests that the method may be applied to surfaces (i.e. wear surfaces) of at least the pressure plate and/or the end plate (see paragraphs 77 and 79), and that the oxidation protection system can be applied to various components of the brake system (see paragraph 77), which implies application to the wear surfaces of the friction disk. the wear surfaces of the densified C/C friction disk. However, Mazany fails to specifically teach the second coating applied the wear surface, or that the C/C friction disk is densified.
Hill et al. teach a carbon friction disk having both a non-wear surface and a wear surface an anti-oxidation coating, specifically a silicon powder over the entire surface (see column 2 lines 37-47) including the wear surface. Further layers are only applied to the non-wear surface (see column 2 lines 54-58) by covering up the wear (or rubbing) surface. This provides further motivation for applying at least some portion of the oxidation protection coating to the wear surface, thereby providing at least some protection against oxidation, as well as preventing oxidation to the non-wear surfaces via a transition point between the wear and non-wear surfaces. Therefore, as per the teachings of Hill et al. and as implied by Mazany, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the second coating of Mazany to the wear surfaces as suggested by Hill et al. and as implied by Mazany, thus providing some measure of oxidation protection to the wear surface.
Poteet et al. teach the known feature of using densified C/C friction disks in aircraft braking systems. This merely improves the strength and operational conditions for the C/C friction disk. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided as the substrate disk of Mazany a densified C/C friction disk as taught by Poteet et al., as this disk structure would have improved operating parameters.
Re-claim 15, Mazany teaches a multi-disk brake system (see figure 1A) comprising: a plurality of carbon/carbon (C/C) friction disks, each C/C friction disk of the plurality of C/C friction disks comprising: a C/C friction core; a first coating (such as a barrier coating, see paragraph 94), the first coating is applied to a radially inward non-wear surface and a radially outward non-wear surface of the C/C friction core; and a second coating (such as a first slurry or phosphate coating), the second coating is applied to the radially inward non-wear surface, the radially outward non-wear surface. Mazany further suggests that the method may be applied to surfaces (i.e. wear surfaces) of at least the pressure plate and/or the end plate (see paragraphs 77 and 79), and that the oxidation protection system can be applied to various components of the brake system (see paragraph 77), which implies application to the wear surfaces of the friction disk. the wear surfaces of the densified C/C friction disk. However, Mazany fails to specifically teach the second coating applied the wear surface, or that the C/C friction disk is densified.
Hill et al. teach a carbon friction disk having both a non-wear surface and a wear surface an anti-oxidation coating, specifically a silicon powder over the entire surface (see column 2 lines 37-47) including the wear surface. Further layers are only applied to the non-wear surface (see column 2 lines 54-58) by covering up the wear (or rubbing) surface. This provides further motivation for applying at least some portion of the oxidation protection coating to the wear surface, thereby providing at least some protection against oxidation, as well as preventing oxidation to the non-wear surfaces via a transition point between the wear and non-wear surfaces. Therefore, as per the teachings of Hill et al. and as implied by Mazany, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the second coating of Mazany to the wear surfaces as suggested by Hill et al. and as implied by Mazany, thus providing some measure of oxidation protection to the wear surface.
Poteet et al. teach the known feature of using densified C/C friction disks in aircraft braking systems. This merely improves the strength and operational conditions for the C/C friction disk. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided as the substrate disk of Mazany a densified C/C friction disk as taught by Poteet et al., as this disk structure would have improved operating parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cho, Jadidian and GB ‘994 each teach an oxidation protection coating applied to a carbon brake disk.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
February 12, 2026