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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 4, the word “reminder” should read –remainder—for the text to read more clearly. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-5, 9, 11-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PG Publication No. 2004/0074733 to Suzuki et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki et al disclose a friction pad 5,17 having a fastening surface (see Figure 3 and the bottom surface of element 4) and a friction surface (see Figure 3 and the top surface of element 4) which faces away from the fastening surface and has a shape delimited by a peripheral cutting edge (see Figure 4 and paragraph 0048), wherein the friction pad 5,17 has a base rim 6,15 that extends along the peripheral cutting edge and is more compressed than the friction pad 5,17 within the base rim 6,15 (see pressing tools 2, 3,11, and 12 in Figures 1, 2, 7, and 8 and paragraphs 0054 -0057).
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki et al further disclose that the base rim 6 has a base height that corresponds to at least a quarter of a pad height of the friction pad 5 (see Figures 3 and 4 and paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki et al further disclose that the base rim 6 has a base width that is at least as large as the pad height of the friction pad 5 (see Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki et al further disclose that the base rim 6 is designed as a peripheral step (see Figures 3 and 4), which in cross section, has a first leg (see Figure 3 and the step leg portion extending down from the top surface of element 4 forming an angle therewith) angled from the friction surface (i.e., the top surface of element 4 in Figure 3), from which a second leg (see Figure 3 and the leg portion extending from the first leg portion forming the outermost end portions of element 4), which is angled, which represents the base rim 6.
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki et al further disclose that the angles between the friction surface (i.e., the top surface of element 4 in Figure 3) and the first leg and between the first leg and the second leg are designed as angles between 90 and 120 degrees (see Figure 3 and the angles formed at the stepped portion of element 4).
Regarding Claim 9, see friction plate 10 having at least one friction pad 5,17 according to Claim 1 as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 11, see Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 12, see Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 13, see Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 14, see Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 15, see Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 20, see Claim 9 above.
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) 6, 8, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG Publication No. 2004/0074733 to Suzuki et al in view of PG Publication No. 2019/0193207 to Kremer et al.
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki et al disclose most all the features of the instant invention as applied above, except for a radius of curvature being formed between the friction surface and the first leg.
Kremer et al are relied upon merely for their teachings of a friction pad assembly 38 having a radius of curvature C formed between a friction surface 66 and a first leg 68 (see Figure 4 and paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed a radius of curvature between the friction surface and the first leg of Suzuki et al as taught by Kremer et al to create a smoother rounded transition between the mating parts for a stronger and more rigid connection therebetween.
Regarding Claim 8, Kremer et al, further disclose that the radius of curvature C has a size of between one tenth and one millimeter (see paragraph 0009 of Kremer et al).
Regarding Claim 16, see Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 17, see Claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 7, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG Publication No. 2004/0074733 to Suzuki et al in view of PG Publication No. 2002/0046912 to Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki et al ‘733 disclose most all the features of the instant invention as applied above, except for a radius of curvature being formed between the first leg and the second leg.
Suzuki ‘912 is relied upon merely for his teachings of a friction pad having a radius of curvature 44 formed between a first leg and a second leg (see Figure 5 and paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the friction pad of Suzuki et al ‘733 to have a radius of curvature formed between the first leg and the second leg as taught by Suzuki ‘912 to create a smoother rounded transition between the mating parts for a stronger and more rigid connection therebetween.
Regarding Claim 18, see Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 19, Suzuki et al ‘733, as modified, discloses most all the features of the instant invention as applied above, except for a second radius of the second radius of curvature being between 0.1 and 1 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed a second radius of the second radius of curvature of Suzuki et al. ‘733, as modified, to be between 0.1 and 1 mm as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired rounded transition between the first and second legs to create the strongest and most rigid connection therebetween.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG Publication No. 2004/0074733 to Suzuki et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki et al disclose most all the features of the instant invention as applied above and further including a process for manufacturing a friction plate 10 according to Claim 9, wherein an intermediate pad product is punched out of a lining material in a punching process (see paragraph 0056) before the punched-out intermediate pad product is adhered onto a carrier element 8 in a subsequent adhesive process (see paragraphs 0049 and 0057).
However, Suzuki et al do not disclose that the base rim is embossed into the intermediate pad product in the adhesive process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the base rim of Suzuki et al so that it is embossed into the intermediate pad product in the adhesive process in order to minimize the number of processing steps in the manufacturing process of the friction plate. Combining the gluing of a friction pad and the embossing of a base edge/rim would save time and simplify the overall manufacturing process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 10,316,901 to Zhang et al and Document no. AT 519090 to Ing et al both disclose friction pads similar to applicant’s.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 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, 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.
PAMELA RODRIGUEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAMELA RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 01/13/26