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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the measured length" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 4-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,128,991 to Garin et al.
Re-claim 1, Garin et al. teaches a method for treating a surface of a rod of a piston, the method comprising:
selecting a rod made from a high strength steel with a hardness greater than 30HRC;
treating a surface of the selected rod by
a grinding step (such as machining, turning etc., see column 4 lines 25-29) of the surface, the surface is a surface of the selected rod of the high strength s;
a finishing step of the surface until an average roughness Ra ≤ 0.2 µm is obtained (this is the first predetermined threshold, see column 4 lines 19-29). However, Garin et al. fail to teach the rod made of a high strength alloy having a minimum hardness greater the 45HRC.
As noted, Garin et al. teach a steel component as the rod, steel components are commonly steel alloys are known to those skilled in the art, since steel is a combination of elements. In addition, steel alloys having hardness values greater than 45HRC are known to those skilled in the art, and include those such as 440C Stainless Steel, A2 Tool Steel and D2 Tool Steel as well as some Carbon Steels. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when having to select the type of steel used in the method of Garin et al. to have selected the steel based upon the desired need and environment in which the rod would have been utilized, thus minimizing the potential for failure.
Re-claim 4, the finishing step includes a tribo-finishing step, see column 4 lines 46-51, thus reducing the surface roughness further to a second predetermined value (such as 0.1 µm).
Re-claims 5-7, the rod is a piston rod in contact with a seal (see friction rod as part of a piston assembly, column 8 lines 3-14).
Re-claim 9, the piston is part of an aircraft brake system.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garin et al. in view of US 2004/0067385 A1 to LeClaire.
Garin et al. fail to suggest the rod made from a nickel-based superalloy.
LeClaire teaches a surface treatment process used on high-strength alloy materials, such as Inconel (which is a nickel-based superalloy). LeClaire further teach materials that may be used as the substrate having hardness values above 45, see paragraph 31, which includes the Inconel. This material would be capable of being substituted for the stainless steel material suggested in Garin et al., as each would have provided the same purpose, of having a high-strength material for the rod. Therefore, as per the teaching of LeClaire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized for the rod of Garin et al. a nickel-based superalloy as taught by LeClaire, yielding the same expectant result of a rod having sufficient strength to operate within an aircraft brake system.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garin et al. in view of LeClaire as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2019/0134711 to Li.
Garin et al. as modified by LeClaire suggest a tensile strength Rm > 1100 MPa for the nickel-based superalloy.
Li teaches a nickel-based superalloy (such as an Inconel 718 alloy, see abstract and figure 10b) undergoing various heat treatment processes that increase the tensile strength of the superalloy to beyond 1100 MPa (specifically up to 1400 MPa). This provides a material with high strength properties, while providing high corrosion resistance and high temperature operation (see paragraph 2 and 43), which is ideal for the aerospace industry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have looked to Li and their teachings of a high tensile strength nickel-based alloy material when having to select a high tensile strength material for the piston rod of Garin et al., as this would have provided a material with a high tensile strength, good corrosion resistance and high temperature operation, all of which is necessary within a brake actuating assembly.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garin et al. in view of US 4,503,950 to Anderson.
Garin et al. as modified by LeClaire fail to teach the rod with a sphere disposed within a deformation tube.
Anderson teaches a common brake actuator adjuster mechanism having a rod 40 with a sphere 62 disposed within a deformation tube 54. This arrangement adjusts for wear of the brake components and prevents excessive reverse motion of the pressure plate (see column 3 lines 26-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the treated piston rod of Garin et al. in an adjuster arrangement of the type taught by Anderson, as this would have provided a piston rod with sufficient strength and durability to operate within a brake system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted above, high strength steel having a hardness value greater than 45HRC is known to those in the art, and would have been selected based upon the requirements of the environment in which the rod is used. Support for this position is found in Moyer as cited by the Office. Moyer teaches the use of high strength steel for forming a piston rod, of which the hardness is greater than 45HRC.
The remarks regarding the grinding and finishing step achieving the recited surface roughness are found unpersuasive. Garin et al. teach a first step of turning the rod element, the phrase “turning” is interpreted to include grinding the rod. Both operations are intending to remove material from a surface of the rod. This step is following by a tribo-finishing step to achieve a lower surface roughness. This tribo-finishing step is consistent with the instant invention, particularly instant claim 4. As such it is unclear what differences are present between the instant invention and the prior art. The remarks regarding the final finishing step of Garin et al. and the use of tungsten bisulfide do not render the claim non-obviousness in light of the teachings. The instant claims merely recite steps carried out during a method of production, and do not preclude any further additional steps thereafter.
It is acknowledged that the treatment process described by Garin et al. produces an overall increase in hardness. However, this does not preclude an individual from selected a steel having a hardness value already greater than 45HRC and then carrying out the prescribed treatment process. This process would likely improve the hardness value of that selected material. It stands to reason that the process described in Garin et al. is intended to improve the hardness value of any material, including those materials having a hardness value already exceeding 45HRC.
With regards to claim 2, LeClaire is merely relied upon as teaching the interchangeability of one alloy for another alloy. It is known to those skilled in the art that certain types of Inconel can reach hardness values of greater than 45HRC, such as Inconel 718. The recited hardness values in the instant claims are interpreted as a feature of the alloy, as known in the art, and is not the inventive concept.
With regards to claim 3, Li is merely relied upon as a teaching of known tensile strength associated with an Inconel alloy (specifically Inconel 718). It would appear that these values are known to those skilled in the art.
With regards to claim 8, Anderson is merely relied upon as a teaching of a brake actuator environment and the use of a rod within this environment. The rod serves as part of an adjuster, and this arrangement is well known in the art. As such the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okamoto et al. teach a coating for a rod of a brake, the rod has a low surface roughness.
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 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 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights