DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements have been received and considered.
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.
Claims 83-133 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 83 line 3 the limitation of “preferentially completely” is not understood. What does this mean and what exactly are the metes and bounds of ‘preferentially completely’?
In the dependent claims limitations/words such as “and/or”, “preferentially”, “in particular”, “optionally” etc. are confusing, indefinite, and difficult to interpret. Nearly all of the claims contain these problems. These limitations most often represent ‘range within a range’ limitations—it becomes unclear whether applicants are relying on the broader limitation before these words or the more narrower limitation after them.
Claim 85 line the limitation of ‘value range’ is not understood.
Claim 87 beginning on line 3 it is unclear what is meant by “.. the primary alloying elements are selected from the second and/or third and/or fourth.. main group… Periodic Table of the Elements..”
Applicants should simply list these elements.
Claim 94 line 6 the limitation of “wherein especially, the diffusion zone might have a solid solution matrix”.. is indefinite and difficult to interpret.
Similarly the limitation on line 8 of “might preferable” is also indefinite. What does this mean?
Claim 95 the limitation of “the intermetallic phrases” lacks antecedent basis and is not understood. What are the metes and bounds of this limitation?
Claim 96 the limitation of “the solid solution matrix” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 98 lines 2 and 7 the limitation of ‘in the case of the aluminum carrier material’ lacks antecedent basis. Also it is unclear what the limitation means.
Claim 103 line 3 the limitation of “the previously sprayed on primary layer” is not understood. Was this suppose to be a dependent claim?
Claim 104 lines 4-5 the limitation of “in the form of many self-sufficient and separately grown crystals” is not understood. What exactly are the metes and bounds of ‘self sufficient’? Also what exactly is a ‘likewise new parallel coexisting solid solution matrix”?
Claim 105 the limitations throughout the claim are convoluted and difficult to interpret.
Claim 107 claims a method dependent from an otherwise structural claim 83. It becomes confusing as to what exactly applicants are relying upon for patentability—the structure of the brake element carrier body or its method of production. Also, These claims cross different statutory classes of invention.
Claim 117 line 7 the limitation of “may contain dopants” is indefinite. Does it contain ‘dopants’ or does it not?
Claims 130 and 132 the dependency of these claims is wrong.
Also with regard to claims 127,128,132 exactly how and why is the brake pad/shoe/backing plate glued/welded/manufactured onto the brake element carrier body which also comprises a brake disc or drum?
The claims are replete with 112 second paragraph problems and should be thoroughly reviewed and revised to conform to U.S. Patent practice as the list above is not intended to be exhaustive of the problems found.
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(s) 83,84,130 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Steinmeier 12,173,764.
Regarding claim 83, subject to the 112 rejection above (and as best understood) Steinmeier shows and describes with regard to figures 1 and 2:
A Brake element carrier body (as per applicant’s definition at para 0155 of the corresponding U.S. Publ 20250116305 A1) with a metal base body 1 (steel or gray cast iron—col 6 lines 15-20), whereby a surface of the base body is at least partially, “preferentially completely”, coated with an alloy AL-Si, and whereby in a diffusion zone 3, the alloy is diffused into the base body 1 (See at least col 2 lines 50-66).
Regarding claims 84,130 these limitations are met.
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.
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) 85-106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinmeier in view of Rettig et al. 11,635,117.
Regarding claim 85 Steinmeier lacks specifically stating the claimed range of Si in the Al-Si alloy coating 3.
However Rettig shows a process for producing a protective coating on a brake disc which may be gray cast iron (col 4 lines 24-30). In col 3 around lines 17-20 Rettig indicates that the percentage of silicon in the Al-Si coating may be between 12-50%.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used an amount of Si particles in the claimed range in the coating 3 of Steinmeier, as taught by Rettig, simply dependent upon a specific application (i.e. thickness of the coating) and/or vehicle of the brake rotor.
Regarding claim 86 these limitations are considered to be obvious in light of the explanation above since the claimed range is close to that of Rettig.
Regarding claims 87-88 subject to the 112 rejections above (and as best understood) note that Rettig indicates in col 3 lines 23-26 that at least copper, chromium and nickel could be added to the AL-Si coating to achieve an increase in strength thereof.
Regarding claims 89-90 subject to the 112 rejections above (and as best understood) simply to have made the alloy from one of the claimed compositions would have been obvious since the AL-Si alloy layer 3, as modified by Rettig, would have all of the constituent elements, the percentages of which would be dictated by the specific application (i.e. thickness of the coating) and/or vehicle of the brake rotor.
Regarding claim 91, (as best understood) note the elements listed are common ‘dopants’ (i.e. added to the base powder to improve wear and corrosion resistance) and overall performance. For instance Rettig uses NbC particles.
Regarding claim 92 these limitations are met.
Regarding claims 93-94 see the abstract of Steinmeier.
Regarding claim 95, as best understood, to have made the coating of Steinmeier, as modified by Rettig, so that the “… intermetallic phases have a gradually increasing concentration of iron or carbon and a gradually decreasing concentration of aluminum and/or silicon and/or the dopants as the distance from the surface of the base body increases..” would have been obvious simply dependent upon a specific application (i.e. thickness of the coating, improvements on the wear and/or corrosion resistance thereof) and/or vehicle of the brake rotor.
Regarding claims 96-106 subject to the 112 rejections above (and as best understood) these limitations are considered to be met by Steinmeier as modified by Rettig for at least the reasons above.
Claim(s) 107-110,112-124 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinmeier/Rettig as applied to claim 83 above, and further in view of Meckel 11,346,414.
Regarding claim 107 Steinmeier, as modified, lacks specifically discussing using a blasting process w/hard ceramic particles to remove an oxide layer on the surface of the base body.
Meckel shows a method of making a brake disc and indicates in col 2 around lines 56-65 that a blasting process using particles of various sizes and/or shapes may be performed to achieve a desired texture/roughness. This would also have a cleaning effect to remove any rust/oxide layers before applying the aluminum- silicon layer for better adhesion.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used some type of blasting process applied to the brake rotor of Steinmeier, as taught by Meckel, before applying the Al-Si coating to it for this reason. Note that Steinmeier uses a preheating treatment and a thermal treatment in applying the coating.
Regarding claims 108-110 these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claims 112-124 as explained above, and as best understood, these limitations are considered to be met.
Claim(s) 111 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinmeier/Rettig/Meckel as applied to claim 108 above, and further in view of CN 112628318 A.
Regarding claim 111 Steinmeier, as modified by Rettig and Meckel, is silent as to the specific blasting angle used to the surface of the base body.
CN ‘318 shows a brake hub having an aluminum alloy layer applied thereto but uses a sand blasting angle 50-90 degrees before applying the coating.
It would have been obvious to have used a blasting angle in the claimed range simply to achieve the desired texture and/or roughness for maximum adhesion of the Al-Si alloy coating. This could be done through routine experimentation and testing.
Claim(s) 125,126 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinmeier/Rettig as applied to claim 83 above, and further in view of JP 4261037 B2.
Regarding claim 125 Steinmeier/Rettig lack stating removing the alloy until the diffusion zone is reached.
JP ‘037 shows Method For Manufacturing Brake Disc Made Of Metal Matrix Composite and states in the machine translation:
In addition, the metal matrix composite material is exposed by removing the aluminum alloy layer from the peripheral portion that was not pressed during press molding. By making the part which exposed the metal matrix composite material into the sliding part which faces a brake pad, a sliding part is made into a high intensity | strength part.
It would have been obvious to have removed the ‘alloy’ until the diffusion zone is reached in Steinmeier, as modified, and as taught by JP ‘037 for this reason.
Regarding claim 126 since JP ‘037 teaches a removal process of some kind is used it would have been obvious to have used one of the claimed techniques, as these techniques are notoriously well known in the art. Further, to have removed the alloy to the claimed amount would have been obvious simply to create the braking frictional surface while preserving maximum integrity of the brake disc.
Claim(s) 127-129,131-133 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinmeier/Rettig as applied to claim 83 above, and further in view of El-Wardany et al.
Regarding claims 127-129,131-133 (subject to the 112 rejections above—and as best understood) Steinmeier as modified lacks specifically stating that the device can also be made into a brake pad/backing plate combination.
El-Wardany et al. indicates in figure 1 a brake pad and backing plate combination at 22,26. Note what may be a brake disc at 32. This devices uses a Al-Si alloy.
In col 5 around lines 5-15 El-Wardany states:
A person of skill in the art will recognize the aforedescribed brake assembly 20 may be implemented in various types of friction braking systems. One or more of the brake assemblies 20 of FIGS. 1 and 2, for example, may be configured in a linear braking system, a disk braking system, a drum braking system, etc.
It would have been obvious to have used the techniques in Steinmeier, as modified, to also form a brake pad and/or brake pad backing plate since the materials to used to make brake discs and brake pad/backing plate combinations are often the same. This could save on manufacturing costs and time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights