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 § 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: claims 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
[AltContent: textbox (Convex portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
337
267
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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: claims 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: claims 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: claims 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 27 that is disposed inward from the bolt hole 30 in a radial direction and traverses the fin as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that Mosbach fails to disclose or teach the convex portion limitation. As discussed in the interview summary mailed 7/17/26, even if Applicant's representative believed the imaginary plane was drawn incorrectly, Mosbach still shows the recited convex portion, as labeled on left figure 5 on pg. 8 of the agenda attached to the interview summary, that protrudes inward in the radial direction from the imaginary plane whether it's the imaginary line drawn in left figure 5 or right figure 5 of the agenda.
Next, Applicant argues that element 13 (cam 22) is not a fin. First, Examiner notes that she referred to element 13 as being a fin. Element 13 is clearly shown in figure 5 as extending from an inner circumferential side shown near the end of the lead line of 33 toward an outer circumferential side shown near the end of the lead line of 28 of the disc body. The fact that Mosbach indicates other element numbers as representing a fin does not preclude Examiner from considering element 13 as a fin. The structure of element 13 reads on the fin recitation as shown.
Finally, with regard to the argument that the combination merely applies to the structure of JP'900, Examiner notes that the argument considers the references individually instead of the combination as a whole. Examiner reiterates that the base reference, Mosbach, includes the limitation of the fins. It is the combination of the limitations that Mosbach possesses and the decreasing thickness teaching of JP'900 that teaches the claimed invention. While Applicant's representative argued that deceasing the thickness of Mosbach would result in a very small weight reduction, Examiner maintained that it is a reduction nonetheless which could still result in a cost savings. Further consideration will be given upon receipt of the official response.
The previously presented 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the most recent amendment.
Conclusion
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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
mmb
August 2, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights