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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the second plate" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 19 and 20 fail to further limit the “brake disk” from which the claim depends, and are instead directed to introducing limitations of a ”brake pad”, which is not a component of the claimed “brake disk” invention. Limitations related to any structure other than that of the brake disk are interpreted as intended use, and do not hold patentable weight. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joseph (US 2013/0306416).
In Re claim 1, Joseph discloses a brake disk (10), comprising: an external portion (10/200 in fig. 5) including: a first surface (12); a second surface (14); a circumferential portion (outer circumferential edge), at least one groove (see downwardly grooved surface radially inward and adjacent to 30/230 in fig. 5; any one of the many cooling grooves 26/226, 50/250, 52/252; or inwardly curved outer circumferential edge in figs. 5 and 6).
In Re claim 2, the grooves listed above are different from each other, or curved or straight (see figs. 1-11).
In Re claim 3, see downwardly grooved surface radially inward and adjacent to 30/230 in fig. 5. Additionally see par. 0003 regarding vibration reduction. The examiner notes that the intended reasoning for the groove is immaterial to patentability.
In Re claim 4, see par. 0003 regarding heat dissipation.
In Re claim 5, see grooves listed above, including grooves on both sides of the brake disk. The examiner notes that at least some of the grooves appear to be symmetrically formed.
In Re claim 6, the grooves on opposing sides of the brake disk extend parallel to each other and perpendicular to the planes of the first and second surfaces.
In Re claim 7, see asymmetrical shaped grooves (see 25/252 vs 50/250) in figs. 5 and 6.
In Re claims 8 and 10, see asymmetrical shaped grooves (see 25/252 vs 50/250) in figs. 5 and 6; and par. 0003 regarding vibration reduction.
In Re claims 9 and 11, see asymmetrical shaped grooves (see 25/252 vs 50/250) in figs. 5 and 6; and par. 0003 regarding heat dissipation.
In Re claim 12, see inwardly curved outer circumferential edge in figs. 5 and 6.
In Re claim 13, see upper and lower circumferential edges (adjacent 12/212 and 14/214) of the brake disk in figs. 5 and 6; these edges appear to be a same distance to the brake disk rotational axis (see radial lines in fig. 1).
In Re claim 18, see pillars (18) in fig. 2 and par. 0059 regarding air flow through the brake disk.
In Re claims 19 and 20, Joseph discloses the use of brake pads which interact with the brake disk and grooves (pars. 0005, 0006, 0090).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 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
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 THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights