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 Objections
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “carbonization, compaction,” should be changed to --carbonizing the workpiece, compacting the carbonized workpiece--.
Claim 1, “wherein that before” should be changed to --wherein before--.
Claim 2, “a step between the holes” should be changed to --a distance between the holes--.
Claim 7, “wherein the weight ratio of carbon fabric and carbon fiber filaments is” should be changed to --a weight ratio of the carbon fabric and the carbon fiber filaments is--.
Claim 8, “carbon fiber filaments are obtained by grinding carbonized fibers and fabrics in disk and/or ball mills” should be changed to --the carbon fiber filaments are obtained by grinding carbonized fibers and fabrics in a disk and/or ball mill(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation “circular workpieces for use in heavily loaded friction units” has been interpretated below as friction discs or brake discs in view of [002] and Figures of Applicant’s specification.
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(s) 1-9 is/are 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 1 recites the term “heavily loaded friction units” which is indefinite. The term makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The term “heavily loaded friction units” is a relative term which is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “workpieces” and “workpiece” inconsistently throughout the claim. The inconsistent use of singular and plural workpiece(s) makes the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “cutting the fabric based on fibers” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the fabric based on fibers” in the claim. Is the claimed “the fabric based on fibers” same or different from “carbon fabrics” introduced earlier? The limitation is also indefinite because it inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. According to [010] and [013] of Applicant’s specification, the disclosed cutting requires cutting of a carbon fabric into circular layers.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “impregnating it with a binder” which is indefinite. It is unclear to what applicant is referring to when reciting the term “it”. Is the claimed “binder” same or different from “pitch binders” introduced earlier? The limitation is also indefinite because it inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. According to [013] of Applicant’s specification, the disclosed impregnating requires impregnation of the circular layers with a pitch binder.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “forming the workpiece, drying the workpieces, pressing, carbonization, compaction, high-temperature processing and mechanical processing” which are indefinite. It is unclear how the workpiece is formed without linking the cut and impregnated carbon fabric layers to the forming. It is unclear to which workpiece of the many workpieces is applicant referring to when reciting the term “the workpiece”. It is unclear what undergoes pressing, carbonization, compaction, high-temperature processing and mechanical processing. The term “high-temperature processing” is indefinite because “high-temperature” is a relative term and it is difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The term “mechanical processing” is indefinite because its scope is unclear and it is difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The limitations are also indefinite because they are inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. According to [013] of Applicant’s specification, the disclosed steps are performed on the formed workpiece in chronological order.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein that before assembling into press packs, the cut fabric impregnated with pitch binder is subjected to a predetermined perforation with holes with a ratio of the linear size of the hole L to the diameter of the filament d, and L / d> 100” which is indefinite. It is unclear when assembling into press packs occurs and what is assembled into press packs. Is the cut fabric impregnated with pitch binder or binder? It is unclear to which hole of the many holes is applicant referring to when reciting the term “the hole”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the diameter of the filament” in the claim. It is also unclear to which filament is applicant referring to when reciting the term “the filament”. Is applicant referring to the filament in the carbon fabric or one of the carbon fiber filaments recited in the preamble?
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein that before assembling into press packs, the cut fabric impregnated with pitch binder is subjected to a predetermined perforation with holes with a ratio of the linear size of the hole L to the diameter of the filament d, and L / d> 100” which is indefinite. It is unclear when assembling into press packs occurs and what is assembled into press packs. Is the cut fabric impregnated with pitch binder or binder? It is unclear to which hole of the many holes is applicant referring to when reciting the term “the hole”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the diameter of the filament” in the claim. It is also unclear to which filament is applicant referring to when reciting the term “the filament”. Is applicant referring to a filament in the carbon fabric or one of the carbon fiber filaments recited in the preamble? The limitation is also indefinite because it inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. According to [013] of Applicant’s specification, the disclosed perforating step occurs after the impregnating step and before the forming step and the disclosed assembling of impregnated carbon fabric layers into a press pack occurs after the perforating step.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “after that, the molding of the press pack is carried out by layer-by-layer alternation of layers of fabric with layers of discrete filaments of carbon fibers with a length of not more than 750 mkm in a mixture with pitch binder powder by sucking an aqueous suspension through each layer of fabric” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the molding” in the claim. Are the terms molding and forming same or different? It is unclear to which press pack of the many press packs is applicant referring to when reciting the term “the press pack”. Are the “discrete filaments of carbon fibers” same or different from the “carbon fiber filaments” recited in the preamble?
Are the “layers of fabric” same or different from the “carbon fabrics” recited in the preamble or the cut fabric based on fibers? The unit/term “mkm” is indefinite, and it is not a unit of length. Are the filaments of carbon fibers provided in discrete layers, in a mixture with pitch binder powder (i.e., a solid mixture), or in aqueous solution (liquid-solid mixture)? The limitation is also indefinite because it inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. According to [007], [013] and Fig. 3 of Applicant’s specification, the disclosed alternating refers to alternating of laying of cut carbon fabric layers and the disclosed sucking of the aqueous suspension through each layer of fabric does not yield alternation of layers of fabric with layers of discrete filaments of carbon fibers because the filaments of carbon fibers are randomly distributed and do not form discrete layers or alternating layers.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “then the pack is compressed and dried in a fixed state to constant weight at the melting temperature of the pitch binder” which is indefinite. Are the compressing and dryings steps of this limitation same or different from the drying and compacting/pressing steps previously recited? It is unclear to which pitch binder of the many pitch binders is applicant referring to when reciting the term “the pitch binder”. Is the “the pitch binder” referring to the pitch binder used for the first impregnation or the powder pitch binder? The term “fixed state” is indefinite because “fixed state” is a relative term and it is difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. What is considered “fixed state”? “fixed state” relative to what? The term “constant weight” is indefinite because its scope is unclear and it is difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. When is the weight considered constant? It is also unclear to the examiner how the pack can be dried when at the melting temperature of the pitch binder because the melting of the pitch binder will wet the pack. The limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with [0008] and [013] Applicant’s specification.
Claim(s) 2-9 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the carbon fabric layers” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the carbon fabric layers” in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the aqueous suspension used to suck through the layers of carbon fabric contains water, pitch binder powder and carbon fiber filaments in a ratio of 100:5:1 to 100:15:3” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the layers of carbon fabric” in the claim. Is the pitch binder powder of claim 3 same or different from the pitch binder powder of claim 1? Are the carbon fiber filaments of claim 3 same or different from the carbon fiber filaments of claim 1? Is the claimed ration based on mass/weight, volume, or moles?
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the compression of the wet press pack is carried out by at least 1/4 of its original thickness” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the compression” and “the wet press pack” in the claim. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the process of molding the press pack, the perforation holes of the carbon fabric layers are positioned coaxially with each other” which is indefinite. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the carbon fabric layers” in the claim. The limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with [007] of Applicant’s specification. Examiner recommends Applicant to introduce a step of laying the cut carbon fabric layers in claim 1 and reciting --the step of laying the cut carbon fabric layers comprises positioning the holes of the carbon fabric layers coaxially with each other-- in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the process of molding the press pack, the perforation holes of the carbon fabric layers are arranged in such a way as to avoid their overlap or partial overlap” which is indefinite. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the carbon fabric layers” in the claim. The limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with [007] Applicant’s specification.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “carbon fabrics of plain, twill and/or satin weave are used with a ratio of warp and weft threads from 1:1 to 3:1” which is indefinite. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with [007] Applicant’s specification. Examiner recommends Applicant the following language --carbon fabrics of plain, twill and/or satin weave with a ratio of warp and weft threads from 1:1 to 3:1 are used as the carbon fabric--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Bouchard (US 20090139808) is regarded as the closest prior art to the claimed invention because Bouchard discloses a method for producing carbon-carbon material in the form of circular workpieces for use in heavily loaded friction units (P0001), the method comprising the steps of preparing a carbon fiber substrate, forming holes through the carbon fiber substrate, and densifying the substrate with a matrix formed at least in part by a chemical vapor infiltration type process (P0012, 0016), wherein preparing the carbon fiber substrate comprises cutting carbon fabric into circular layers and laying the circular layers (P0042-0045). Bouchard discloses that the diameter of the holes is an optimizable parameters (P0061-0067). Bouchard further discloses that the method further comprises the steps of forming by pressing, carbonizing, compacting by pressing, high-temperature treatment and mechanical processing such as machining (P0070-0071, 0076-0085).
Bouchard fails to disclose or suggest i) sucking an aqueous suspension comprising carbon fiber filaments with a length of not more than 750 mkm and a pitch binder powder through each layer of carbon fabric during the forming step, and (ii) a ratio of a linear size (L) of the holes to a diameter (d) of the carbon fiber filaments of L / d> 100. No other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combining to render the claimed invention obvious. The combination of the claimed limitations yields the advantage(s) of making a strong and uniform carbon-carbon friction material more economically while avoiding delamination by retaining the carbon fiber filaments with that length and diameter in the holes in view of at least paragraphs [005-008] of Applicant’s specification. For at least the reasons set forth above, claims 1-9 are deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Lafore (US 20090297707) discloses a relevant method (Fig. 1 and accompanying text).
Huang (US 20040155382) discloses a relevant method (Fig. 2 and accompanying text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights