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 § 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 , 3-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriano et al (WO 2020/132736, please refer to US 2022/0064356 for English language equivalent and mapping) and Harada (US 2016/0347949) . Regarding claim 1 , Adriano teaches a heat curable (Table 2) composition for a friction material ([0066]) comprising a lignin-modified novolac-type phenol resin (claim 1) and a curing agent (claim 1). However, Adriano is silent to the molecular weight of the resin. Harada teaches a phenolic resin for friction materials (Abstract) which teaches that the novolac phenol resin has a weight average molecular weight which ranges from 1,000 to 8,000 ([0023]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have the lignin-modified novolac type phenol resin of Adriano has the molec ular weight as taught by Adriano. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of improving the glass transition temperature when the curing time is shortened as well as having good molding properties (Harada, [0023]). Regarding claim 3 , Adriano teaches that the lignin-modified novolac-type phenol resin is a resin obtained by causing a lignin compound, a phenol compound, and a aldehyde compound to react in a presence of an acid catalyst (claim 1 and [0099]). The molar ratio of the aldehyde compound to the phenol compound ranges from 0.3 to 0.9 ([0133]). Regarding claim 4 , Adriano teaches that the molecular weight of the lignin can range from 260 to 50 million g/mol. ([0089]). Regarding claim 5 , Adriano teaches that the curing agent is hexamethylenetetramine ([0124]). Regarding claim 7-8 , Adriano teaches a friction material made from the cured product of the heat curable resin composition for a friction material according to claim 1 wherein the friction material is a brake pad, a brake lining or a clutch facing ([0155]). Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriano et al (WO 2020/132736, please refer to US 2022/0064356 for English language equivalent and mapping) and Harada (US 2016/0347949) and Kuroe (EP 2 642 150) . The discussion regarding Adriano and Harada in paragraph REF FP_07_21_AIA \r \p \h 3 above is incorporated here by reference. Regarding claim 2 , Adriano teaches the lignin-modified novolac-type phenol resin (claim 1), however fails t o teach the lignin modification ratio of the biomass modification ratio. Kuroe teaches a lignin-phenol resin (Abstract) which has a biomass content which ranges from 20 to 90% by mass ([0039]). 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 lignin-phenol resin of Adriano have the biomass range as taught by Kuore . One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having a friction coefficient equivalent to or more than the case of a conventional friction material (Kuroe, [0039]). Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriano et al (WO 2020/132736, please refer to US 2022/0064356 for English language equivalent and mapping) and Harada (US 2016/0347949) and Galimberti et al (US 2016/0327112). The discussion regarding Adriano and Harada in paragraph REF FP_07_21_AIA \r \p \h 3 above is incorporated here by reference. Regarding claim 6 , Adriano teaches that the phenol resin is cured to a solid material (Examples), however fails to teach that it is in a powdery form. Galimberti teaches a friction material (Abstract) in which the ingredients are ground to a powder (Claim 1) to reduce it to a size between 5 and 500 microns ([0022]). 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 cured phenol resin of Adriano be ground to the powder as taught by Galimberti. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having an even mixing of the components within the friction material (Galimberti, [0034]). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/551,005 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recited a composition with a lignin-modified novolac-type phenol resin and a curing agent. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3872 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT DORIS L. LEE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1764 /DORIS L LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764