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 Objections Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim places some recitations within quotations. Appropriate correction is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the segments extending in a spiral as recited first in claim 20 and also recited in claim 33 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 18-34 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: claim 18. The phrase “in that each radial segment is adjacent and joined , on both sides” is indefinite. It is unclear to the Examiner as to which “both sides” Applicant intends to refer to. The phrase leads one to wonder whether Applicant intends to refer to the both circumferential sides of the segment or the top and bottom sides of the segment. A similar issue exists wi th respect to the transverse segment. Also, the phrase “said layer” in line 6 is indefinite since more than one layer was previously recited. Examiner suggests such language as --said respective layer--. Re: claim 19. The phrase “the joining zones” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim . Re: claim 21. The phrase “each…coil)” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. Examiner suggests first reciting a plurality of coils and then later referring to each coil to avoid confusion. Also the term “preferably” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. Re: claim 22. T he term “preferably” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. Re: claim 24. The phrase “ for example ” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. Re: claim 26. The term “preferably” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. Also, t he phrase “for example” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. Re: claim 28. The term “ preferably ” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. Re: claim 29. The phrase “for example” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. Re: claim 30. The phrase “for example” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. Re: claim 32. The phrases “a plurality of layers of carbon fibers”, “an overlap axis”, “a plurality of radial segments and transverse segments” are indefinite since it is unclear whether they are intended to be the same or different from the earlier recited layers of carbon fibers, overlap axis, and radial and transverse segments. Also, i t is unclear to the Examiner as to which “both sides” Applicant intends to refer to. Finally, t he phrase “for example” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. The remaining claims are indefinite due to their dependency from claim 18. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 18 , 19 , 22- 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO-2016199021 (WO’021) . Re: claim s 18 , 23 , and 27 . WO’021 shows in figure 1 a shaped material having circular or annular shape and comprising a plurality of layers 2, 4, 6 of carbon fibers as described in the abstract stacked along an overlap axis X , wherein each layer comprises a plurality of radial segments 8 and transverse segments 10 described in the abstract placed side by side and joined together to form said layer as described in paragraph [003 8 ] , wherein the radial segments are segments in which the carbon fibers are mainly oriented in a radial direction relative to the overlap axis as shown , and the transverse segments are segments in which the carbon fibers are mainly oriented in a direction incident I to 3489960 1165860 Transverse segment 0 Transverse segment 2842260 1219200 0 0 3573780 2034540 Radial segment 0 Radial segment 2651760 1508760 said radial direction as shown , wherein said shaped material is characterized in that each radial segment is adjacent and joined, on both sides, to a transverse segment and each transverse segment is adjacent and joined, on both sides, to a radial segment, thus forming in each layer an alternation of radial segments and transverse segments as described in paragraph [003 8 ] in which the reference mentions that 5 transverse segments 10 could alternate with at least one radial segment(s) 8 . Examiner notes that since at least one radial segment(s) 8 includes 5 radial segments, 5 transverse segments alternating with 5 radial segments satisfies the claimed recitation wherein each radial segment is adjacent and joined , on both sides , to a transverse segment, and each transverse segment is adjacent and joined, on both sides, to a radial segment, as best understood. Re: claim 19. WO’021 shows in figure 1 and describes in paragraph [0031] wherein, relative to the overlap axis X , the segments of a layer are angularly offset with respect to the segments of an adjoining layer so that the joining zones between the segments do not overlap through the thickness of said shaped material as shown in figure 2 . Re: claim 22. WO’021 discloses in paragraph [0022] wherein the number of layers is comprised in the range between 18 and 40. Re: claim 24. WO’021 discloses in paragraph [0027] wherein the segments are in the form of a circular sector having a circumferential width comprised in the range 60-90 degrees. Re: claim 25. WO’021 discloses in paragraph [0029] wherein each segment mainly or exclusively comprises unidirectional carbon fibers arranged in the radial or incident direction as shown in figure 1. Re: claim 26. WO’021 discloses in claim 10 wherein at least part of the carbon fibers are derived from oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers. Re: claim s 28 , 32 and 34 . WO’021 discloses in paragraph [0039] the shaped material comprising silicon carbide obtained by reaction of part of the carbon of the carbon fibers and/or of a carbonaceous matrix of the shaped material with at least part of silicon infiltrated in the shaped material. With regard to claim 32, see the rejection of claims 18 and 28 and also see paragraphs [0003] and [0004] for the thermal or thermochemical densification treatment limitation. Re: claim 29. WO’021 discloses in paragraph [0015] wherein the shaped material has a residual porosity of less than 5%. Re: claim 30. WO’021 discloses in the abstract the shaped material being a disc for disc brakes for example a ventilated disc. 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) 20 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’021 in view of US Patent Application 2018/0209497 to Cividini et al . WO’021 shows in figure 1 segments extending in a substantially continuous manner around the overlap axis, but is silent with regard to the segments extending in a spiral. Cividini et al. teach in figure 1 the use of a disc shaped material 1 extending in a spiral. It would have been obvious to have modified the segments of the shaped material of WO’021 to have extended in a spiral, in view of the teachings of Cividini et al., in order to provide better heat dissipation through increased surface interaction. Claim (s) 2 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’021 in view of Cividini et al. as applied above, and further in view of US Patent Application 20 11/0220763 to Enright . WO’021 , as modified, is silent with regard to the layers having an inclination between 1 to 10 degrees relative to an axis orthogonal to the overlap axis Enright teach in figure 1B and in claims 9 and 10 the use of a disc layer 10 having an inclination between 1 to 10 degrees relative to an axis orthogonal to an overlap or rotation axis 12 . It would have been obvious to have modified the layers of the shaped material of WO’021 , as modified, to have an inclination between 1 to 10 degrees relative to an axis orthogonal to the overlap axis , in view of the teachings of Enright , in order to provide progressive engagement of the disc with surrounding pads and/or to improve heat dissipation . Claim (s) 3 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’021 in view of DE-102010037382 (DE’382). WO’021 describes a ventilated type brake disc in paragraph [0014] which has two plates separated by vanes/vents defining opposite braking surfaces intending to cooperate with a pad of the disc brake , each plate having a portion or thickness that is meant to be worn that comprises at least a portion of at least one layer that varies as it is worn down over time and a portion or thickness that is meant to represent the minimum thickness that comprises at least a portion of at least one layer, but is silent with regard to the minimum thickness specifically being 3 layers . The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. See In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) and (II)(C). It would have been obvious to have the number of layers of WO’021 that makes up the minimum thickness to have been 3, in view of the teachings of WO’021 and Aller , in order to provide enough material to prevent catastrophic wear of the disc . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patents: DE-102007046724, JPS60220232, CN-111425539, CN-108561459, KR-20110024395, US3936552, and US 8281907 teach the use of similar segmented brake discs . In order to complete the record, it should be noted that no conflict appears to presently exist between the subject matter defined by the instant claims and the subject matter of the claims of ap pli cant’s and/or assignee’s application no. 15/578609 (US11215250) has been made of record. Accordingly, no double patenting rejection is entered into the instant application. See MPEP 804+ concerning double patenting type of rejections, if necessary. Applicant and/or assignee should maintain this clear line of patentable distinction between the instant claims and the claims of the indicated patent application. 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 March 27, 2026 /MELODY M BURCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616