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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 97/33100 .
WO ‘100 disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; a brake disc for a railway vehicle, comprising: a disc body 8 that has a front surface and a back surface, the disc body being a one-piece annular disc; and a plurality of fins (all or some of fins 9) that are radially disposed on the back surface, at least one of the fins having a bolt hole at a central portion of the fin in a radial direction of the disc body, wherein the disc body includes an inner circumferential portion that is positioned inward from the bolt hole in the radial direction and decreases in thickness as the inner circumferential portion extends inward in the radial direction, and the fins each include: a top surface that extends in the radial direction; and a convex portion that, as viewed in a section of the brake disc cut in the radial direction, protrudes inward in the radial direction from an imaginary plane passing an end portion of the top surface and an inner circumferential edge of the back surface, the end portion being one of both end portions of the top surface, whichever is positioned inward in the radial direction. Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
715
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, a length of the fin having the bolt hole in the radial direction is denoted by L0, and a length of the inner circumferential portion in the radial direction is denoted by L1, and L1/L0 is ¼ or less. Note the inner circumferential portion is significantly less the 1/4 the fin length.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the disc body further includes a plurality of projections (others of fins 9) on the back surface.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3 760 891.
EP ‘891 disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; a brake disc for a railway vehicle, comprising: a disc body 31 that has a front surface 311 and a back surface, the disc body being a one-piece annular disc annular disc; and a plurality of fins (all or some of fins 32) that are radially disposed on the back surface, at least one of the fins having a bolt hole 333 at a central portion of the fin in a radial direction of the disc body, wherein the disc body includes an inner circumferential portion that is positioned inward from the bolt hole in the radial direction and decreases in thickness as the inner circumferential portion extends inward in the radial direction, and the fins each include: a top surface 323 that extends in the radial direction; and a convex portion that, as viewed in a section of the brake disc cut in the radial direction, protrudes inward in the radial direction from an imaginary plane passing an end portion of the top surface and an inner circumferential edge of the back surface, the end portion being one of both end portions of the top surface, whichever is positioned inward in the radial direction. Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
852
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
800
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the fins having the bolt hole includes grooves that are disposed outward and inward from the bolt hole in the radial direction and traverse the fin. Note the groove at #35 in figure 1. Regarding claims 5 and 7, a length of the fin having the bolt hole in the radial direction is denoted by L0, and a length of the inner circumferential portion in the radial direction is denoted by L1, and L1/L0 is ¼ or less. Note the inner circumferential portion is significantly less the 1/4 the fin length.
Regarding claims 6, 10 and 13, the disc body further includes a plurality of projections (others of fins 32) on the back surface.
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.
Claims 3, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 760 891.
Regarding claim 3, EP ‘891 further discloses that the inner circumferential portion has a tapered surface that constitutes a part of the back surface and decreases in diameter as the surface extends toward the front side, and as viewed in a section of the brake disc cut in the radial direction, but lack an angle formed by the tapered surface with the front surface is 25° or more to 45° or less (claims 3 and 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum angle of the inner circumferential portion of EP ‘891 through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum air flow while ensuring adequate strength. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, a length of the fin having the bolt hole in the radial direction is denoted by L0, and a length of the inner circumferential portion in the radial direction is denoted by L1, and L1/L0 is ¼ or less. Note the inner circumferential portion is significantly less the 1/4 the fin length.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the disc body further includes a plurality of projections (others of fins 32) on the back surface.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, and 11-12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 97/33100.
Regarding claims 3-4, WO ‘100 further discloses that the inner circumferential portion has a tapered and curved surface that constitutes a part of the back surface and decreases in diameter as the surface extends toward the front side, and as viewed in a section of the brake disc cut in the radial direction, but lack an angle formed by the tapered surface with the front surface is 25° or more to 45° or less (claim 3) or an angle formed by a tangential line of the curved surface with the front surface is 25° or more to 45° or less, the tangential line having a largest gradient with respect to the front surface of tangential lines of the curved surface (claim 4). The angles of WO ‘100 appear to be very close to 45 degrees, however, specific angles are not disclosed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum angle of the inner circumferential portion of WO ‘100 through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum air flow while ensuring adequate strength. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 8-9, a length of the fin having the bolt hole in the radial direction is denoted by L0, and a length of the inner circumferential portion in the radial direction is denoted by L1, and L1/L0 is ¼ or less. Note the inner circumferential portion is significantly less the 1/4 the fin length.
Regarding claims 11-12, the disc body further includes a plurality of projections (others of fins 9) on the back surface.
Claims 2, 7, 10, and 14-19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 97/33100 in view of Nogami et al (US# 2015/0247541).
Regarding claim 2, WO ‘100 discloses all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the fins having the bolt hole including grooves that are disposed outward and inward from the bolt hole in the radial direction and traverse the fin. Nogami et al disclose a similar brake disc and further teach grooves 5a/5b that are disposed outward and inward from a bolt hole 4 in the radial direction and traverse the fin. Figures 4a-c. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include grooves such as taught by Nogami et al, in the fins of WO ‘100 to improve cooling performance and durability of the brake disc. [0046][0047] of Nogami et al.
Regarding claim 7, a length of the fin having the bolt hole in the radial direction is denoted by L0, and a length of the inner circumferential portion in the radial direction is denoted by L1, and L1/L0 is ¼ or less. Note the inner circumferential portion is significantly less the 1/4 the fin length.
Regarding claim 10, the disc body further includes a plurality of projections (others of fins 9) on the back surface.
Regarding claims 14-15, WO ‘100 further discloses that the inner circumferential portion has a tapered and curved surface that constitutes a part of the back surface and decreases in diameter as the surface extends toward the front side, and as viewed in a section of the brake disc cut in the radial direction, but lack an angle formed by the tapered surface with the front surface is 25° or more to 45° or less (claim 14) or an angle formed by a tangential line of the curved surface with the front surface is 25° or more to 45° or less, the tangential line having a largest gradient with respect to the front surface of tangential lines of the curved surface (claim 15). The angles of WO ‘100 appear to be very close to 45 degrees, however, specific angles are not disclosed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum angle of the inner circumferential portion of WO ‘100 through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum air flow while ensuring adequate strength. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 16-17, a length of the fin having the bolt hole in the radial direction is denoted by L0, and a length of the inner circumferential portion in the radial direction is denoted by L1, and L1/L0 is ¼ or less. Note the inner circumferential portion is significantly less the 1/4 the fin length.
Regarding claims 18-19, the disc body further includes a plurality of projections (others of fins 9) on the back surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights