DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits of Application No. 19/135,279 filed on 06/03/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a center line of the embossed groove in claims 5 and 15 must be shown or labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “friction lining pads” should read “frictions pads”.
Claim 12, line 2, “friction lining pads” should read “frictions pads”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a groove pattern” in line 4/5. From ¶[0002] of the specification “The groove pattern is also referred to as the groove design” and a design is not a technical feature because it does not include functional aspect of the invention but rather just a design. Thereof, it is unclear what technical subject matter in this claim is supposed to be put under protection.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation “surfaces of the friction pads which are exclusively surrounded by embossed grooves” render the claim indefinite. It is not clear which surfaces of the friction pads have a kite quadrilateral shape. Does it mean the surface area of the friction pads? Clarification is required. For the examination purpose, “surfaces” has been considered as “area surfaces”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected due to their dependency from claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepper (US 20210010555 A1) (hereinafter“ Tepper”) in view of DENDA et al. (WO 2016180540 A1)(hereinafter“ DENDA”)(machine translation relied upon as attached).
Regarding claim 1, Tepper discloses a friction plate (e.g. 1, fig. 1) comprising:
a carrier plate (e.g. 1, fig. 1, friction plate and carrier plate have same numerical number);
and
a plurality of friction pads (e.g. 4, lining pieces 11 to 15; 21 to 25; 31 to 35, para 32) attached to the carrier plate (1);
wherein the friction plate (1) has a groove pattern (e.g. radially inner branch grooves 51 to 57, stem groove 41, radially outer groves 61 to 69, etc., see para 38) formed by the friction pads (4) and each friction lining pad (e.g. 11-15, 21-25, 31-35, fig. 1) having a friction surface and the friction pads being separated from each other by segmentation grooves, but fails to disclose wherein each friction pad on the friction surface additionally has embossed grooves.
DENDA teaches a friction disk (51a and 52a; Fig.6) having a plurality of friction pads (52a) has an embossed groove (22a/ 21a; Fig.3, see page 6, para 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tepper to have embossed groove as taught by DENDA so that it provide more uniform distribution of lubricant across friction surface since the groove has shallower depth.
Regarding claim 2, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the friction plate as modified according to claim 1, DENDA further discloses wherein the embossed grooves (e.g. 51-57, 61-69, etc.) on the friction surface of the friction pads (e.g. 4) are at least one of over embossed, milled, or grinded grooves, or the segmentation grooves run radially between the friction pads (e.g. 11-15, 21-25, and 31-35).
Regarding claim 4, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the friction plate as modified according to claim 1, Tepper further discloses wherein each embossed groove (e.g. pointed by 85 in fig. 1, para 38) is inclined in one of the two circumferential directions with respect to a radial course, and this results in its belonging to one of two groove groups.
Regarding claim 5, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the friction plate as modified according to claim 4, Tepper further discloses wherein the inclination of the embossed grooves (e.g. lines 85, fig. 1) is given by means of an angle y (see the annotated fig. A) between a center line (see the annotated fig. A ) of the embossed groove and an inner circumference tangent (see the annotated fig. A) at an interface between the course of the center line of the embossed groove and a course of the inner circumference of the friction pads.
PNG
media_image1.png
425
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Annotated fig. 1 of Tepper
Regarding claim 10, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the friction plate as modified according to claim 5, Tepper further discloses wherein the angle y is chosen to be between some range lower than 90 but fails to disclose between 0 and 45°, preferably from the range between 40°and 44°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the Tepper because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 11, Tepper discloses a drive train component including a clutch ( not shown, see para 31 and fig. 1) comprising: a friction plate (e.g. 1, fig. 1) comprising:
a carrier plate (e.g. 1, fig. 1, friction plate and carrier plate have same numerical number);
and
a plurality of friction pads (e.g. 4, lining pieces 11 to 15; 21 to 25; 31 to 35, para 32) attached to the carrier plate (1);
wherein the friction plate (1) has a groove pattern (e.g. radially inner branch grooves 51 to 57, stem groove 41, radially outer groves 61 to 69, etc., see para 38) formed by the friction pads (4) and each friction lining pad (e.g. 11-15, 21-25, 31-35, fig. 1) having a friction surface and the friction pads being separated from each other by segmentation grooves, but fails to disclose wherein each friction pad on the friction surface additionally has embossed grooves.
DENDA teaches a friction disk (51a and 52a; Fig.6) having a plurality of friction pads (52a) has an embossed groove (22a/ 21a; Fig.3, see page 6, para 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tepper to have embossed groove as taught by DENDA so that it provide more uniform distribution of lubricant across friction surface since the groove has shallower depth.
Regarding claim 12, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the drive train component as modified according to claim 11, DENDA further discloses wherein the embossed grooves (e.g. 51-57, 61-69, etc.) on the friction surface of the friction pads (e.g. 4) are at least one of over embossed, milled, or grinded grooves, or the segmentation grooves run radially between the friction pads (e.g. 11-15, 21-25, and 31-35).
Regarding claim 14, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the drive train component as modified according to claim 11, Tepper further discloses wherein each embossed groove is inclined in one of the two circumferential directions (e.g. pointed by 85 in fig. 1, para 38) with respect to a radial course, and this results in its belonging to one of two groove groups (e.g. 61, 101, and 64, 102).
Regarding claim 15, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the drive train component as modified according to claim 14, Tepper further discloses wherein the inclination of the embossed grooves (e.g. lines 85, fig. 1) is given by means of an angle y (see the annotated fig. A) between a center line (see the annotated fig. A ) of the embossed groove and an inner circumference tangent (see the annotated fig. A) at an interface between the course of the center line of the embossed groove and a course of the inner circumference of the friction pads.
Regarding claim 19, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the drive train component as modified according to claim 11, Tepper further discloses wherein all center lines of all embossed grooves form tangents to a common circle with a common radius Rk.
Regarding claim 20, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the drive train component as modified according to claim 15, Tepper further discloses wherein the angle y is chosen to be between some range lower than 90 but fails to disclose between 0 and 45°, preferably from the range between 40°and 44°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the Tepper because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepper (US 20210010555 A1) in view of DENDA et al. (WO 2016180540 A1) and further in view of Langenkaemper et al. (US 20180328415 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the friction plate as modified according to claim 1, but fails to discloses wherein all center lines of all embossed grooves
Langenkaemper teaches a similar kind of friction plate (e.g. 1, fig. 2) wherein all center lines (e.g. the lines drawn by the defection point 41) of all embossed grooves (e.g. 31, 32)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tepper/ DENDA to have embossed groove as taught by Langenkaemper so that the improved cooling effect of the radial inner area of the frictional surface can be achieved independently of the direction of rotation of the disk.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepper (US 20210010555 A1) in view of DENDA et al. (WO 2016180540 A1) and further in view of Bill (US 20150027826 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the friction plate as modified according to claim 1, wherein surfaces of the friction pads which are exclusively surrounded by embossed grooves have a kite quadrilateral shape ( e.g. 22, fig. 2) but fails to discloses at least one of the surfaces of the friction pads or edge lengths of the kite quadrilaterals which are exclusively surrounded by embossed grooves become larger from radially inside to radially outside.
Bill teaches a similar kind of friction plate (e.g. 400, fig. 4) wherein at least one of the surfaces of the friction pads or edge lengths of the kite quadrilaterals (e.g. 418, para 30) which are exclusively surrounded by embossed grooves (e.g. 420, fig. 4) become larger from radially inside (406) to radially outside (e.g. 408).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tepper/ DENDA to have larger surface area of the friction pads towards the outer diameter as taught by Bill so that it can facilitates heat transfer through every groove and each groove can be substantially filled with oil and there is less likely of a chance for air to be entrapped in any one groove. (see par 29 of Bill)
Regarding claim 13, Tepper/ DENDA discloses the drive train component as modified according to claim 11, wherein surfaces of the friction pads which are exclusively surrounded by embossed grooves have a kite quadrilateral shape ( e.g. 22, fig. 2) but fails to discloses at least one of the surfaces of the friction pads or edge lengths of the kite quadrilaterals which are exclusively surrounded by embossed grooves become larger from radially inside to radially outside.
Bill teaches a similar kind of friction plate (e.g. 400, fig. 4) wherein at least one of the surfaces of the friction pads or edge lengths of the kite quadrilaterals (e.g. 418, para 30) which are exclusively surrounded by embossed grooves (e.g. 420, fig. 4) become larger from radially inside (406) to radially outside (e.g. 408).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tepper/ DENDA to have larger surface area of the friction pads towards the outer diameter as taught by Bill so that it can facilitates heat transfer through every groove and each groove can be substantially filled with oil and there is less likely of a chance for air to be entrapped in any one groove. (see par 29 of Bill)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, and 16-18 are objected to as been dependent upon a rejected base claims 1 and 11, respectively, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten 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.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Jhang et al. (US 10316901 B2) discloses a clutch pack includes a first set of clutch plates arranged in an alternating configuration with a second set of clutch plates. The first set of clutch plates has a plurality of friction pads made of friction material and defining channels in the friction material. The channels are configured to allow lubricant to flow between the friction pads. Each of the friction pads defines a groove in the friction pad. The groove is disconnected from the channels. The groove thereby creates a flow induced high pressure region forcing the first set of clutch plates to a center between the second set of clutch plates.
Götz (US 20180216673 A1) discloses a frictionally operating device includes friction lining pieces, which are spaced apart from each other by grooves in order to create a friction surface in the form of a circular-ring-shaped disk, especially in respect of suitability for production and/or functionality. In an example embodiment, the friction part has friction lining pieces, which are spaced apart from each other by grooves in order to create a friction surface in the form of a circular-ring-shaped disk, if some or all of the friction lining pieces are in the shape of triangles. The triangular friction lining pieces may be arranged in a plurality of circumferential rows. The grooves between the friction lining pieces may extend as far as a carrier element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHANA PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Jacob S. Scott can be reached on 5712703415. 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.
/FARHANA PERVIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
