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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “improvised” in the title “IMPROVISED DISC BRAKE ROTOR” appears to be in error. It is noted that the priority document uses the word “improved” which appears more appropriate.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 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 7 recites “the maximum transverse dimension in a radial direction”. The disclosed transverse direction D is not in the radial direction. [0016] of the specification recites “the maximum dimension in a radial direction” and [0053] recites “The maximum dimension L of the larger diamond-shaped pillars of the two similar larger outer pillars 22 and 24 is approximately equal to 0.5 of the radial distance W between the inner periphery 26 and outer periphery 28 of the rotor.” It is unclear which dimension is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 13, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chiesura (US# 2022/0275843).
Chiesura discloses all the limitations of the instant claim including; disc brake rotor 1; the rotor comprising a central hub 33 coaxial with and supporting annular rings 3/4 which form an inboard brake band 3 and an outboard brake band 4 for engagement with brake pads of a disc brake; the inboard brake band and the outboard brake band maintained in a parallel spaced apart configuration by an array of pillars 16-18; the array of pillars arranged in repeating families of individually shaped pillars.
Regarding claims 2-3, each repeating family lies within a sector of the rotor (claim 2), wherein each sector is defined by an angle of 22.5 degrees (claim 3). See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, each family of pillars includes eight pillars divided into two groups of pillars; a first group of four outer pillars lying in an outward half of the sector and a second group of four inner pillars lying within an inward facing half of the sector. See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the first group of pillars includes two larger outer pillars 16; each of the two larger outer pillars being of similar diamond shape. The outer pillars have a diamond shape similar to 22 and 38 of the instant invention.
Regarding claim 11, the first group of outer pillars further includes two smaller outer pillars 21; each smaller outer pillar positioned adjacent a clockwise side of each of the two larger outer pillars 16.
Regarding claim 13, each of the two smaller outer pillars 21 are of an approximate diamond shape rounded at each end; the diamond shape modified so as to approach the shape of an asymmetric oval in which an inward facing half of the oval is longer and narrower than an outward facing half.
Regarding claim 21, the first group of outer pillars 16 is radially shifted relative the second group of inner pillars 18.
Regarding claim 22, Chiesura discloses a method of optimizing shape of pillars 16-18 in groups of pillars of a disc brake rotor; the disc brake rotor comprising inner 3 and outer 4 annular brake bands maintained in spaced apart parallel configuration by the groups of pillars; the method including the steps of: arranging the pillars into repeating families of pillars; each family lying in a 22.5 degree sector of the rotor; further arranging each family into two groups of pillars; an outer group of pillars and an inner group of pillars; forming each outer group of pillars and inner group of pillars to comprise of two larger pillars 16/18 and two smaller pillars 21/20, and wherein each larger pillar and each smaller pillar in a family of pillars has a distinctive shape.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cavagna et al (US# 2012/0255821).
Cavagna et al discloses all the limitations of the instant claim including; disc brake rotor 14; the rotor comprising a central hub 12 coaxial with and supporting annular rings 16/18 which form an inboard brake band 16 and an outboard brake band 18 for engagement with brake pads of a disc brake; the inboard brake band and the outboard brake band maintained in a parallel spaced apart configuration by an array 26/28/30 of pillars; the array of pillars arranged in repeating families of individually shaped pillars.
Regarding claim 2, each repeating family lies within a sector of the rotor.
Regarding claim 4, each family of pillars includes eight pillars divided into two groups of pillars; a first group of four outer pillars 58 lying in an outward half of the sector and a second group of four inner pillars 60 lying within an inward facing half of the sector. See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
932
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the first group of pillars includes two larger outer pillars 58; each of the two larger outer pillars being of similar diamond shape.
Regarding claim 6, in each larger outer pillar a ration of a first maximum dimension in a radial direction to a maximum transverse dimension is 2. [0122]
Regarding claim 7, the maximum transverse dimension LR in a radial direction of the larger outer pillars is approximately 0.5 of a radial distance between an inner and an outer periphery of the brake band. Figure 14.
Regarding claim 11, the first group of outer pillars further includes two smaller outer pillars 20; each smaller outer pillar positioned adjacent a clockwise side of each of the two larger outer pillars 58.
Regarding claim 21, the first group of outer pillars 58 is radially shifted relative the second group of inner pillars 60.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 11, 16-17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ronchi et al (US# 2019/0353216).
Ronchi et al discloses all the limitations of the instant claim including; disc brake rotor 2; the rotor comprising a central hub 19 coaxial with and supporting annular rings 3/4 which form an inboard brake band 3 and an outboard brake band 18 for engagement with brake pads of a disc brake; the inboard brake band and the outboard brake band maintained in a parallel spaced apart configuration by an array of pillars 9-12; the array of pillars arranged in repeating families of individually shaped pillars.
Regarding claim 2, each repeating family lies within a sector of the rotor.
Regarding claim 4, each family of pillars includes eight pillars divided into two groups of pillars; a first group of four outer pillars 11-12 lying in an outward half of the sector and a second group of four inner pillars 8-9 lying within an inward facing half of the sector. See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
844
854
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the first group of outer pillars further includes two smaller outer pillars 11; each smaller outer pillar positioned adjacent a clockwise side of each of the two larger outer pillars 12.
Regarding claim 16, the four inner pillars of the second group of inner pillars is arranged in a pattern of: larger inner pillar 8, smaller inner pillar 9, larger inner pillar 8, smaller inner pillar 9; each of the inner pillars having an inward facing end proximate the inner periphery of the rotor.
Regarding claim 17, each of the two larger inner pillars 8 is formed based on a generally diamond shape elongated in a generally radial direction. The pillars 8 have a diamond shape similar to 22 and 38 of the instant invention.
Regarding claim 20, a second of the two larger inner pillars has a convexly projecting longer edge on an anticlockwise longer side and a concave inset on a clockwise longer side. Note a convexly projecting longer edge is on both sides.
PNG
media_image5.png
844
854
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the first group of outer pillars 12 is radially shifted relative the second group of inner pillars 9.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 11, 16, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gavin (US# 2004/0188196).
Gavin discloses all the limitations of the instant claim including; disc brake rotor; the rotor comprising a central hub 1 coaxial with and supporting annular rings 2 which form an inboard brake band and an outboard brake band for engagement with brake pads of a disc brake; the inboard brake band and the outboard brake band maintained in a parallel spaced apart configuration by an array of pillars; the array of pillars arranged in repeating families of individually shaped pillars.
Regarding claim 2, each repeating family lies within a sector of the rotor.
Regarding claim 4, each family of pillars includes eight pillars divided into two groups of pillars; a first group of four outer pillars lying in an outward half of the sector and a second group of four inner pillars lying within an inward facing half of the sector. See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image6.png
788
900
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the first group of outer pillars further includes two smaller outer pillars 11; each smaller outer pillar positioned adjacent a clockwise side of each of the two larger outer pillars 22.
PNG
media_image7.png
802
900
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the four inner pillars of the second group of inner pillars is arranged in a pattern of: larger inner pillar, smaller inner pillar, larger inner pillar smaller inner pillar; each of the inner pillars having an inward facing end proximate the inner periphery of the rotor. Note figure above
Regarding claim 19, a first of the two larger inner pillars 30 has a concave inset 32 along each of two longer edges.
Regarding claim 21, the first group of outer pillars 11 is radially shifted relative the second group of inner pillars 14/30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiesura (US# 2022/0275843) in view of Biondo et al (US# 8499904) or Waninger (US# 2009/0095582).
Chiesura discloses all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to long axes of each of the two larger outer pillars is inclined relative radial lines passing through respective centers of the larger outer pillars. Biondo et al and Waninger both disclose similar brake rotors and further teach long axes of pillars being inclined relative radial lines passing through respective centers of the pillars. Col. 2, lines 59-63 of Biondo et al and [0010][0022] of Waninger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incline the pillars of Chiesura, as taught by Biondo et al or Waninger, to provide maximum cooling should the particular vehicle application move the vehicle in primarily in the same direction.
Regarding claim 9, Waninger teaches angles between 15 degrees and 20 degrees. [0010]
Regarding claim 10, Waninger teaches the inclination of the long axes is opposite to a direction of rotation of the rotor. [0010].
Claims 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavagna et al (US# 2012/0255821) in view of Biondo et al (US# 8499904) or Waninger (US# 2009/0095582).
Cavagna et al discloses all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to long axes of each of the two larger outer pillars is inclined relative radial lines passing through respective centers of the larger outer pillars. Biondo et al and Waninger both disclose similar brake rotors and further teach long axes of pillars being inclined relative radial lines passing through respective centers of the pillars. Col. 2, lines 59-63 of Biondo et al and [0010][0022] of Waninger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incline the pillars of Cavagna et al, as taught by Biondo et al or Waninger, to provide maximum cooling should the particular vehicle application move the vehicle in primarily in the same direction.
Regarding claim 9, Waninger teaches angles between 15 degrees and 20 degrees. [0010]
Regarding claim 10, Waninger teaches the inclination of the long axes is opposite to a direction of rotation of the rotor. [0010].
Claims 8-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronchi et al (US# 2019/0353216) in view of Biondo et al (US# 8499904) or Waninger (US# 2009/0095582).
Ronchi et al discloses all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to long axes of each of the two larger outer pillars is inclined relative radial lines passing through respective centers of the larger outer pillars. Biondo et al and Waninger both disclose similar brake rotors and further teach long axes of pillars being inclined relative radial lines passing through respective centers of the pillars. Col. 2, lines 59-63 of Biondo et al and [0010][0022] of Waninger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incline the pillars of Ronchi et al, as taught by Biondo et al or Waninger, to provide maximum cooling should the particular vehicle application move the vehicle in primarily in the same direction.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Waninger teaches angles between 15 degrees and 20 degrees. [0010]
Regarding claim 10, Waninger teaches the inclination of the long axes is opposite to a direction of rotation of the rotor. [0010].
Claims 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiesura (US# 2022/0275843).
Regarding claim 12, Chiesura disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to each smaller outer pillar has a maximum dimension in a radial direction equal to approximately 0.45 of the maximum dimensions in the radial direction of the two larger outer pillars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate diameter of the outer pillars 21 of Chiesura through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Chiesura disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception a gap in a clockwise direction between a first of the two larger outer pillars 16 and an adjacent smaller outer pillar 21 is approximately 0.2 of the maximum transverse dimension of the first larger outer pillar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate gaps of the pillars Chiesura through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 15, Chiesura disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception a gap in a clockwise direction between a second of the two larger outer pillars 16 and an adjacent smaller outer pillar 21 is approximately 0.5 of the maximum transverse dimension of the second larger outer pillar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate gaps of the pillars Chiesura through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavagna et al (US# 2012/0255821).
Regarding claim 12, Cavagna et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to each smaller outer pillar has a maximum dimension in a radial direction equal to approximately 0.45 of the maximum dimensions in the radial direction of the two larger outer pillars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate diameter of the outer pillars 20 of Cavagna et al through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Cavagna et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception a gap in a clockwise direction between a first of the two larger outer pillars 58 and an adjacent smaller outer pillar 20 is approximately 0.2 of the maximum transverse dimension of the first larger outer pillar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate gaps of the pillars 20 Cavagna et al through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 15, Cavagna et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception a gap in a clockwise direction between a second of the two larger outer pillars 58 and an adjacent smaller outer pillar 20 is approximately 0.5 of the maximum transverse dimension of the second larger outer pillar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate gaps of the pillars 20 Cavagna et al through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronchi et al (US# 2019/0353216).
Regarding claim 12, Ronchi disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to each smaller outer pillar has a maximum dimension in a radial direction equal to approximately 0.45 of the maximum dimensions in the radial direction of the two larger outer pillars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate diameter of the outer pillars 11 of Ronchi through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Ronchi et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception a gap in a clockwise direction between a first of the two larger outer pillars 12 and an adjacent smaller outer pillar 11 is approximately 0.2 of the maximum transverse dimension of the first larger outer pillar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate gaps of the pillars Ronchi et al through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 15, Ronchi et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception a gap in a clockwise direction between a second of the two larger outer pillars 12 and an adjacent smaller outer pillar 11 is approximately 0.5 of the maximum transverse dimension of the second larger outer pillar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate gaps of the pillars Ronchi et al through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavin (US# 2004/0188196).
Regarding claim 12, Gavin disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to each smaller outer pillar has a maximum dimension in a radial direction equal to approximately 0.45 of the maximum dimensions in the radial direction of the two larger outer pillars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate diameter of the outer pillars 11 of Gavin through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Gavin disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception a gap in a clockwise direction between a first of the two larger outer pillars and an adjacent smaller outer pillar 11 is approximately 0.2 of the maximum transverse dimension of the first larger outer pillar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate gaps of the pillars Gavin through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 15, Gavin disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception a gap in a clockwise direction between a second of the two larger outer pillars and an adjacent smaller outer pillar 11 is approximately 0.5 of the maximum transverse dimension of the second larger outer pillar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate gaps of the pillars Gavin through routine design and/or experimentation to provide optimum balance of rigidity and airflow for a given application. Also note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights