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
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nogami (WO 2021/065392). All citations to Nogami (WO 2021/065392) will be made with respect to Nogami (US 2022/0333656), which is an English language publication corresponding to the Japanese language WO publication.
Regarding independent claim 1, Nogami discloses a disc brake device for a railway vehicle (see Nogami (US 2022/0333656), ¶ 0001; FIGS. 1, 2, 10, 11), the disc brake device comprising: a rotary member (10) attached to an axle (200) of the railway vehicle (see FIG. 1); a brake disc including an annular disc body (20e) having a back surface (see FIG. 11, “inner side”) that faces the rotary member and a plurality of fins (222) arranged in a radial formation on the back surface (see FIG. 10), the fins each extending in a radial direction of the disc body (see FIG. 10); and an airflow-rate restriction member (30e) for restricting airflow rate between the rotary member and the disc body (see ¶ 0026), wherein the airflow-rate restriction member includes: a base plate (31) sandwiched between the rotary member and the fins (see FIG. 11); and a protruding portion (32e) arranged inward in the radial direction with respect to the fins (see FIG. 11), the protruding portion protruding from the base plate toward a disc body side (see FIG. 11, “outer side”), the protruding portion extending in a circumferential direction of the disc body (see FIG. 10).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogami (WO 2021/065392), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kondo (WO 2019/194203). All citations to Kondo (WO 2019/194203) will be made with respect to Kondo (US 2021/0025465), which is an English language publication corresponding to the Japanese language WO publication.
Regarding claim 2, Nogami does not disclose that the protruding portion includes a curved surface arranged in a portion of a surface of the protruding portion on a brake disc side, the curved surface having an arc-shape that is convex outward of the protruding portion when the disc brake device is viewed in section that includes a central axis of the disc body.
Kondo teaches a disc brake device for a railway vehicle (see Kondo (US 2021/0025465), ¶ 0001) comprising an airflow-rate restriction member (30) comprising a protruding portion (34) (see FIGS. 6, 7, 9), wherein the protruding portion includes a curved surface arranged in a portion of a surface of the protruding portion on a brake disc side (see FIGS. 6, 7, 9), the curved surface having an arc-shape that is convex outward of the protruding portion when the disc brake device is viewed in section that includes a central axis of the disc body (see FIGS. 6, 7, 9).
It would have been obvious to configure the protruding portion of Nogami to have a curved surface to cause flow smoothly over the protruding portion, thereby preventing a large variation in airflow pressure near the leading end of the protruding portion which prevents vibration, noise and degradation of the protruding portion (see e.g. Kondo, ¶ 0060).
Regarding claim 3, neither Nogami nor Kondo disclose that the curved surface has a radius of curvature of 10 mm or more. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In the present case, Kondo recognized that the curvature of the protruding portion is a result-effective variable for preventing vibration, noise and degradation of the protruding portion (see Kondo, ¶ 0060). As such, it would have been obvious as a matter of routine experimentation to provide a curvature of radius of the protruding portion that is 10 mm or more to optimize a reduction in noise, vibration and degradation of the protruding portion.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogami (WO 2021/065392), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Sakayama et al. (US 2017/008336).
Regarding claim 4, Nogami discloses that a protruding height of the protruding portion is no more than a height of the fins (see FIG. 11).
Nogami does not disclose that a length of a clearance between the protruding portion and the fins along the radial direction is less than 10 mm.
Sakayama teaches a disc brake device for a railway vehicle (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-5b) comprising a minimum airflow section (see FIGS. 5A, 5B, minimum airflow area “g”), wherein a clearance of the minimum airflow section in the radial direction is less than 10 mm (see ¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to size the clearance between the protruding portion and the fins along the radial direction to be less than 10 mm to suppress aerodynamic sound (see e.g. Sakayama, ¶ 0050).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogami (WO 2021/065392) in view of Kondo (WO 2019/194203), as applied to claims 2 and 3, above, and further in view of Sakayama et al. (US 2017/008336).
Regarding claim 6, Nogami discloses that a protruding height of the protruding portion is no more than a height of the fins (see FIG. 11).
Nogami does not disclose that a length of a clearance between the protruding portion and the fins along the radial direction is less than 10 mm.
Sakayama teaches a disc brake device for a railway vehicle (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-5b) comprising a minimum airflow section (see FIGS. 5A, 5B, minimum airflow area “g”), wherein a clearance of the minimum airflow section in the radial direction is less than 10 mm (see ¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to size the clearance between the protruding portion and the fins along the radial direction to be less than 10 mm to suppress aerodynamic sound (see e.g. Sakayama, ¶ 0050).
Regarding claim 7, Nogami discloses that a protruding height of the protruding portion is no more than a height of the fins (see FIG. 11).
Nogami does not disclose that a length of a clearance between the protruding portion and the fins along the radial direction is less than 10 mm.
Sakayama teaches a disc brake device for a railway vehicle (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-5b) comprising a minimum airflow section (see FIGS. 5A, 5B, minimum airflow area “g”), wherein a clearance of the minimum airflow section in the radial direction is less than 10 mm (see ¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to size the clearance between the protruding portion and the fins along the radial direction to be less than 10 mm to suppress aerodynamic sound (see e.g. Sakayama, ¶ 0050).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights