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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim (s) 1 -12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application 2015/0232108 to Mosbach et al . in view of JP-08074900 (JP’900). Re: claim s 1 , 5 , 11, and 12 . Mosbach et al. show in figure 5 brake disc for a railway vehicle, comprising: a disc body 4 or 5 that has a front or bottom surface and a back or top surface, the disc body being annular as shown in figure 4 and having a thickness as the disc body extends inward in a radial direction; and a plurality of fins 13 that are radially disposed on the back surface, at least 3589020 335280 Convex portion 0 Convex portion 2263140 495300 0 0 1737360 1638300 0 0 one of the fins 13 having a bolt hole 30 at a central portion of the fin in the radial direction as shown , wherein the disc body includes a plurality of projections 20 that are formed on a portion of the back surface as shown , the portion being positioned outward from the bolt hole in the radial direction as shown in figure 5 , and the fins each include: a top surface that extends in the radial direction; and a convex portion , as labeled, 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 as shown, but is silent with regard to the thickness decreasing as the disc body extends inward in the radial direction. JP’900 teaches in figure 14 the use of a brake disc having a body 11 in which the thickness decreases as the body extends inward in the radial direction as shown in the area of element 52 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disc body of Mosbach et al. to have decreased as the body extends inward in the radial direction, in view of the teachings of JP’900, in order to provide a means of reducing weight without sacrificing performance while resulting in less thermal stress to help reduce warping and/or cracking of the disc body . Re: claim s 2 and 6 . Mosbach et al., as modified, teach in figure 4 of Mosbach et al., wherein the projections 20 are formed over the entire back surface. Re: claim s 3 , 7, and 9 . Mosbach et al., as modified, teach in figure 5 of Mosbach et al. wherein the fin 13 having the bolt hole includes a first groove 26 that is disposed outward from the bolt hole 30 in a radial direction and traverses the fin as best understood . Re: claim s 4 , 8, and 10 . Mosbach et al., as modified, teach in figure 5 of Mosbach et al. wherein the fin 13 having the bolt hole includes a second groove 2 7 that is disposed in ward from the bolt hole 30 in a radial direction and traverses the fin as best understood . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 -10 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. Re: claims 3 , 4, 9, and 10 . The phrase “the fin” is indefinite. It is unclear to the Examiner as to which fin Applicant intends to refer to since a plurality of fins were previously recited. A similar issue exists in claims 9 and 10. C laims 7 are 8 are in definite due to their dependency from claim 3. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Applications US2016/0076613 and US2010/0258392, US Patents US6241053 and US6116387 and foreign patent WO2011/051603 teach the use of similar brake discs . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7114 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Robert Siconolfi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. mmb April 1, 2026 /MELODY M BURCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616