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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendments/remarks filed on 03/11/2026. Claims 1, 5-11, 15-20 are pending; claims 1, 9 have been amended; claims 2-4, 12-14 are canceled.
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, 5-11, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayanagi (US 6062367 A) in view of Youngwerth (US 20150152923 A1).
Claim 1: Hirayanagi discloses a friction plate (20; Fig.1 and 6) having
a friction material (10) fixed to a substantially annular core plate (7),
wherein the friction plate (20; Fig.6) is provided with a plurality of first oil grooves (21;Fig.6) that communicate an inner peripheral edge (inner circumference edge of 20) and an outer peripheral edge (outer circumference edge of 20) of the friction plate (20),
wherein the friction material (10; Fig.6) is provided with a second oil groove (11; Fig.6) having one end opened to the inner peripheral edge (e.g. inner circumference edge of 20) of the friction plate (20) and the other end) closed between the inner (e.g. inner circumference edge of 20) and outer peripheral edges (e.g. outer circumference edge of 20),
wherein the first oil groove (21; Fig.6) and the second oil groove (11) are inclined along a rotational direction (circumferential direction) of the friction plate (20) (col.3 lines 61-62);
wherein each of center lines of the first oil groove (21) and the second oil groove (11) in the circumferential direction are with respect to a normal line of the inner circumferential edge of the friction plate (col.3 lines 61-62 implies that both grooves are not aligned with radial direction so their centerlines have to be at an angle relative to circumferential direction).
Note: Hirayanagi does not explicitly disclose rotational direction. However, it is well known in the art that clutch plates rotate in a circumferential direction about its axis, thereof, the rotational direction is circumferential direction.
Hirayanagi does not disclose wherein the second oil groove has a shape in which a width in a circumferential direction of the friction plate decreases from the inner peripheral edge toward the outer peripheral edge of the friction plate; and wherein the angle is opposite to the rotational direction with respect to a normal line of the inner circumferential edge of the friction plate and wherein the angle is 30 degrees.
Youngwerth teaches a friction plate (100; fig.2) having a friction material (104) is provided with an oil groove (206); wherein the oil groove (206) has a shape in which a width in a circumferential direction of the friction plate (100) decreases from the inner peripheral edge toward the outer peripheral edge of the friction plate (100) (see Fig.2); and wherein the angle (207) is opposite to the rotational direction (ccw, see ¶[0018] and ¶[0021]: “the groove offset angle 207 is a positive 35 degrees representing a left-to-right groove offset angle 207. In another embodiment, the groove offset angle 207 is a negative 35 degrees representing a right-to-left groove offset angle 207.”) with respect to a normal line (209) of the inner circumferential edge of the friction plate (100)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify groove (11) of Hirayanagi to have a decreasing width from inner peripheral edge toward the outer peripheral edge of the friction plate and have the teaching of the angle is opposite to the rotational direction apply to both grooves (11 and 21 of Hirayanagi) as taught by Youngwerth to improve oil pressure, disengagement behavior, reduce drag torque and/or to improve movement of oil into the groove.
Note: Youngwerth teaches the offset angle (207) is 35 degree ( see ¶[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select 30 degree angle to apply to the first groove (21) and second groove (modified groove 11) of Hirayanagi is predictable, routine optimization to obtain predictable and improve lubrication and oil flow effects. Secondly, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses the friction plate according to claim 1, wherein the first oil groove (21) and the second oil groove (modified groove 11 of Hirayanagi) are provided alternately in the circumferential direction (See fig.6 of Hirayanagi).
Claim 6: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses the friction plate according to claim 1, wherein a width of the first oil groove (21) in the circumferential direction is substantially constant from the inner peripheral edge (e.g. inner circumference edge of 20) to the outer peripheral edge (e.g. outer circumference edge of 20) (see Fig.6 of Hirayanagi).
Claim 7: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses he friction plate according to claim 1, wherein the second oil groove (modified groove 11) is provided substantially at a center in the circumferential direction between two adjacent first oil grooves (21) (see Fig.6).
Claim 8: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses the friction plate (20) according to claim 1, wherein the other end of the second oil groove (modified groove 11) terminates at a position in a range of approximately 20% to 80% of a width of the friction plate in the radial direction (as shown in Fig.6, the other end of modified groove 11 is about 50% of width of plate 20 in radial direction).
Claim 9: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses the friction plate (20) according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of friction materials (10) is attached to the core plate (7) in a substantially annularly shape at substantially equal intervals and at predetermined intervals so as to form the first oil grooves (21).
Claim 10: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses the friction plate (20) according to claim 1, wherein the friction material (10) is a substantially annular, the first oil groove (21) and the second oil groove (modified groove 11) are alternately formed in the friction material (20) at a predetermined interval in the circumferential direction, and the friction material (10) is attached to the friction plate (20) substantially coaxially.
Claim 11: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses a wet multi-plate clutch (col.1 line 5) comprising: the friction plate (20; Fig.1 and 6) according to claim 1, and separator plates (3) arranged alternately with the friction plate (20) in an axial direction (see Fig.1).
Claim 15: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses a wet multi-plate clutch (col.1 line 5) comprising: the friction plate (20; Fig.1 and 6) according to claim 5, and separator plates (3) arranged alternately with the friction plate (20) in an axial direction (see Fig.1).
Claim 16: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses a wet multi-plate clutch (col.1 line 5) comprising: the friction plate (20; Fig.1 and 6) according to claim 6, and separator plates (3) arranged alternately with the friction plate (20) in an axial direction (see Fig.1).
Claim 17: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses a wet multi-plate clutch (col.1 line 5) comprising: the friction plate (20; Fig.1 and 6) according to claim 7, and separator plates (3) arranged alternately with the friction plate (20) in an axial direction (see Fig.1).
Claim 18: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses a wet multi-plate clutch (col.1 line 5) comprising: the friction plate (20; Fig.1 and 6) according to claim 8, and separator plates (3) arranged alternately with the friction plate (20) in an axial direction (see Fig.1).
Claim 19: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses a wet multi-plate clutch (col.1 line 5) comprising: the friction plate (20; Fig.1 and 6) according to claim 9, and separator plates (3) arranged alternately with the friction plate (20) in an axial direction (see Fig.1).
Claim 20: Hirayanagi as modified by Youngwerth discloses a wet multi-plate clutch (col.1 line 5) comprising: the friction plate (20; Fig.1 and 6) according to claim 10, and separator plates (3) arranged alternately with the friction plate (20) in an axial direction (see Fig.1).
Response to Arguments
1-Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
a. Applicant argued “Initially, Applicant would respectfully observe that in addition to lacking the feature (B), the rotational direction relative to the oil grooves is not defined in Hirayanagi. As such, the above-mentioned feature (C), wherein each of center lines of the first oil groove and the second oil groove in the circumferential direction are inclined at an angle opposite to the rotational direction with respect to a normal line of the inner circumferential edge of the friction plate, cannot be derived from Hirayanagi. Note further that Hirayanagi's grooves 11 and 21 are not inclined at the same angle, let alone both being inclined at an angle of 30 opposite to the rotational direction with respect to a normal line of the inner circumferential edge of the friction plate, as claimed.
--In response to the argument above, examiner respectfully disagree because the rejections does not rely on Hirayanagi alone. Hirayanagi discloses inclined grooves (21, 11) along a rotational direction (circumferential direction) of the friction plate (20). Youngwerth explicitly teaches orientation grooves relative to rotational direction and the offset angles is opposite to the rotational direction (ccw, ¶[0018]) with respect to a normal line (209) of the inner circumferential edge of the friction plate (100). Youngwerth further teaches the offset angle (207) is 35 degree ( see ¶[0021]). Accordingly, the combination discloses inclined grooves (21,11 as disclosed by Hirayanagi) having the offset angles is opposite to the rotational direction (ccw, ¶[0018]) with respect to a normal line (209) of the inner circumferential edge of the friction plate (100) as taught by Youngwerth. Although neither Hirayanagi and Youngwerth discloses the angle is 30 degrees, selecting 30 degree angle to apply to the first groove (21) and second groove (modified groove 11) of Hirayanagi is predictable, routine optimization to obtain predictable and improve lubrication and oil flow effects. Thereof, as the combination of Hirayanagi and Youngwerth discloses the claimed feature of (B) and (C).
b. Applicant argued “While Youngwerth discloses a groove 201 of decreasing width in a direction from an inner peripheral edge toward an outer peripheral edge of a friction plate, the reference fails to remedy the deficiencies of Hirayanagi. Note that Youngwerth discloses a groove offset angle of 35 (see par. [0021]) and does not disclose the relationship of such offset angle to the offset angle of a first groove that communicates an inner peripheral edge and an outer peripheral edge of the friction plate (e.g., 10g of the instant application). Therefore, the claimed arrangement wherein both the first and second have an inclination angle of 30 opposite to the rotational direction with respect to a normal line of the inner circumferential edge of the friction plate is not suggested by Youngwerth, nor by Youngwerth in combination with Hirayanagi. There is simply no motivation to make the inclination angle 30 for both grooves, as now claimed. Indeed, as will be appreciated from the following drawings, if the V-shaped groove 201 of Youngwerth were adopted for the oil groove 11 of Hirayanagi, the directions of the offset angles (61 and 62) of the oil passage 21 and oil groove 11 would be opposite- that is, one would be positive and the other negative.
--In response to the argument above, examiner respectfully disagree because Youngwerth teaches the offset angle (207) is 35 degree ( see ¶[0021]); and further discloses variations of offset angles including positive 35 degrees and negative 35 degrees and 0 degrees (see ¶[0021]). This demonstrates that Youngwerth teaches a range workable angles, rather than an opposite directional configuration as applicant argued. Thereof, selecting the offset angle to be 30 degree angle is predictable, routine optimization to obtain predictable and improve lubrication and oil flow effects. Secondly, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, Youngwerth teaches the offset angles is opposite to the rotational direction (ccw, see ¶[0018]). One skill in the art would recognize that by applying the teaching of Youngwerth to both grooves (21 and 11 in Hirayanagi). The modified structure of Hirayanagi would have to align the orientation of and employ the same angle in order to ensure consistent oil flow toward the desired areas and simplifies design by using same angle for both grooves. Thus, applying the same angle to both grooves is predictable for the purpose of improve lubrication and oil flow effects.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Lillian T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/LILLIAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655A
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights