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 .
Response to Amendment
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on January 30, 2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to include a curing agent, the solid-ness of the components, and the type and amount of the curing agent. This combination of limitations was not present at the time of the previous office action. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: please put a space in “to100” and also delete the underscore after the word “of”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al (JP 2008 063440, please refer to machine translation for mapping) in view of Kuchi et al (JP 2000 063801, please refer to machine translation for mapping).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Saito teaches a phenol resin (Abstract) composition for a friction material (page 8, mode-for-invention section). The resin comprises a silicon rubber resin (page 4), a phenol resin (page 4) and a curing agent such as hexamethylenetetramine (page 4) which is present in the amount from 5-20 parts per 100 parts of the phenol resin (page 4). It is noted that the phenol resin can be pulverized (page 4) and therefore, it is a solid material at room temperature.
However, Saito is silent to the solidity of the silicon resin.
Kuchi teaches a friction material (abstract) which incorporates a silicon rubber powder ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the silicon resin of Saito be in the powder form as taught by Kuchi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent noise and cracking (Kuchi, [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Saito teaches that the silicon rubber resin is present in the amount from 3 to 35 % by weight with respect to the phenol resin (page 4).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “pulverizing and mixing components (A) and (B)” is a product-by-process limitation and, as such, does not carry much patentable weight.
Regarding 6, Saito teaches that the friction material further comprises a filler (Examples).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764