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 § 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) 1, 4-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,128,991 to Garin et al.
Re-claims 1 and 4, Garin et al. disclose a method for treating a rod, the method comprising: a grinding step (such turning etc., see column 4 lines 25-29); a finishing step (such as tribo-finishing step, see column 4 lines 46-51, and a surface roughness Ra less than 0.2 µm and substantially equal to 0.1 µm, see column 2 lines 57-60). It is noted the rod is a high-strength material with a hardness greater than 30 HRC, which includes values up to 45, although this limitation is not recited in the body of the claim.
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 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) 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 A1 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 LeClaire as applied to claim 7 above, and further 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sankey teaches a brake piston rod made from a high strength alloy. Clark teaches a brake piston rod having a hardened head portion in cooperation with a deformable tube. Seah teaches stainless steel having tensile strengths above 2000 MPa.
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
February 5, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616