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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 12/23/2022.
Claims 1-11 are pending and have been considered.
Claim 4 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, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process), without significantly more.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5022500 A Wang; Nui (“WAN”)
Claims 1, 2, 5- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sergent, N. 2010, Analysis and Optimisation of Disc Brake Calipers (“SER”) in view of US 5022500 A Wang; Nui (“WAN”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sergent, N. 2010, Analysis and Optimisation of Disc Brake Calipers (“SER”) in view of US 5022500 A Wang; Nui (“WAN”) n further view of Autodesk “Using Enforced Displacements in a Nonlinear Analysis with Autodesk Nastran”, Feb 2017 https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/tsarticles/ts/3P7GzK4slv5rqAHdLnEIpQ.html (“AUT”)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sergent, N. 2010, Analysis and Optimisation of Disc Brake Calipers (“SER”) in view of US 5022500 A Wang; Nui (“WAN”) n further view of Autodesk “Using Enforced Displacements in a Nonlinear Analysis with Autodesk Nastran”, Feb 2017 https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/tsarticles/ts/3P7GzK4slv5rqAHdLnEIpQ.html (“AUT”) in further view of Pishad, A. R. Advanced design of brake calipers, Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2012 (“PIS”)
Priority
The application claims priority to the Application DE102021215028.4 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, with filing date 12/23/2021. Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2022, 01/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Notations, Abbreviations and Conventions used.
The number in the parenthesis, following next to a claim number, when used, is the number of the parent claim.
The following abbreviations are used:
BRI = Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
POSITA = Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art
101 - 35 USC § 101
102 or 103 = 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103
(S1)/(S2A1)/(S2A2) (S2B) = Steps 1, 2AProng1 , 2AProng2, and 2B of the multi-step eligibility analysis in the Alice/Mayo framework
WURC = Well Understood, Routine, Conventional
{ } text from the reference
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 4 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 4 recites, “wherein the uniform axial displacement of the first face (24) is different from the uniform axial deflection of the second face (26). The specification refers to both cases when it mentions deflection and displacement as in “This may result in an uneven widening of a gap between the faces and/or in uneven axial local deflection and displacement across and within each face” but also to displacement in both faces : “Said faces may thus be displaced by different (e.g. absolute) distances. Specifically, each of the first and second face may maintain their orientations relative to one another and/or to the piston movement axis, while the respective extends (e.g. distances) of the axial displacement may differ.“ Consequently it is unclear if different axial movements or axial movement different than deformation of other face. A POSITA would not be able to determine the scope of the claimed comparison with reasonable certainty.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claim in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-11 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims 1-10 directed to a method), machine (claim 11 directed to a break caliper).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Regarding claim 1
(S2A1)
Claim 1 recites recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
The method for structurally optimizing a brake caliper,
the brake caliper (10) having a first face (24) and a second face (26) that are spaced apart from one another along a piston movement axis (A), (additional elements describing the technological environment, field of use)
wherein the first and second face (24, 26) are connected by a bridge section (22) of the caliper (10), (additional elements describing the technological environment, field of use)
wherein the method is performed based on a computer-implemented model (30) of the brake caliper (10), caliper model, (additional element, generic computer implementation – simulation, ‘apply it’)
the method comprising:
prescribing a boundary condition according to which an orientation of the first face (24) and the second face (26) relative to one another and/or to the piston movement axis (A) remains constant under load; (a choice, a decision made by a person, which can be performed in the mind, hence mental process)
performing a structural optimization of the caliper model (30) taking into account said boundary condition. (described at such high level the structural optimization recited does not imply anything that can not be practically performed in the mind, as a person can consider a few structural alternatives and optimize by choosing one of a dozen options.)
According to the MPEP 2106.04 II. B guidance when multiple limitations reciting abstract ideas these should be combined for analysis as a single abstract idea. In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the combination of abstract ideas in the bolded limitations claim recites a process aimed at: “ prescribing boundary condition and using it to perform structural optimization ”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement and decision-making. It can be practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
(S2A2)
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or to a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claim 1 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the Ifield of Use limitations, which for situations substantially similar to those here, were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)).
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and Insignificant Extra Activities. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 1 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 does not recite any abstract idea; claim 11 is eligible under 35 USC 101.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent claims further recite:
2(1)
manufacturing the brake caliper (10) based on the structurally optimized caliper model (30) and by means of a generative manufacturing process.
The manufacturing limitation integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus
Claim 2 is eligible under 35 USC 101 .
3(1)
wherein prescribing the boundary condition includes: - selecting a plurality of nodes (51-53) or other model elements comprised by the first face (24) and a plurality of nodes (51-53) or other model elements comprised by the second face (26); and - prescribing for each of the first and second face (24, 26) a uniform axial displacement of their respective nodes (51-53) or other model elements.
The selection of the nodes, or other model elements and prescribing things for them is something that a person could do mentally. The limitation further refines the abstract idea. The analysis is similar to that of claim 1 – the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Claim 3 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 4-10:
4(3)
wherein the uniform axial displacement of the first face (24) is different from the uniform axial deflection of the second face (26). Further details the displacement used in the prescription limitation, refining the abstract idea.
5(1)
wherein no or at least less restrictive boundary conditions are prescribed for deformations of the first and second face (24, 26) in directions extending at an angle and in particular orthogonally to the piston movement axis (A) : Further details the boundary conditions that are prescribed, refining the abstract idea.
6(1)
wherein the structural optimization is performed with respect to at least one of the following targets: - weight; - deformation behavior and/or stiffness; - natural frequency; - mass distribution; - additional brake fluid intake during brake activation; - thermal distribution within the caliper (10). Further details the optimization targets, refining the abstract idea.
7(1)
wherein the method further includes: - defining locally admissible degrees of stiffness within the caliper (10); wherein the structural optimization takes said locally admissible degrees of stiffness into account. Further details prescription and optimization, refining the abstract idea.
8(1)
wherein the structural optimization includes varying at least one of the following with respect to at least one form feature or at least one section of the caliper (10), the form feature or section being preferably comprised by the bridge section (22): - a positioning of said form feature or section; - an orientation of said form feature or section; - a dimensioning of said form feature or section; - a density of said form feature or section; - a stiffness of said form feature or section. Further details optimization, refining the abstract idea.
9(8)
wherein the form feature is one of a recess or cut-out (25), a rib (27) or web, a thinned portion, a thickened portion. Further details optimization aspects, refining the abstract idea.
10(1)
wherein as a further boundary condition for the structural optimization an admissible deformation of the bridge section (22) is prescribed, in particular a permissible axial deformation.
Further details prescription, refining the abstract idea.
The analysis of claims 4-10 is similar to that of claim 3. As these claims recite only limitations further clarifying the abstract idea, there are no additional elements to integrate into a practical application or provide significantly more. Each of these claims continues to recite, and further reinforce/elaborate on the abstract idea in the parent claim. These further elements in the dependent claims only limit other claim elements, of prescription, optimization, targets of optimization or deformations, by describing their nature, structure and/or content, thus further limiting the form of the transactions that are acted upon in the parent claim.
Moreover, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the further elements in these dependents claims, respectively, do not perform any claimed method steps These cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea from a judicial exception into an eligible application, because they do not represent significantly more. In summary, in none of the claims there is an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus, when each of these claims is considered as a whole, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, claims 4-10 are deemed ineligible.
To summarize, claims 1, 3-10 are ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claims 2, 11 are eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5022500 A Wang; Nui (“WAN”)
Regarding claim 11 WAN teaches
Brake caliper (10), having a first face (24) and a second face (26) that are spaced apart from one another along a piston movement axis (A), wherein the first and second face (24, 26) are connected by a bridge section (22), wherein an orientation of the first face (24) and the second face (26) relative to one another and/or to the piston movement axis (A) remains constant under load. {See at least (1) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS (2) A disc brake assembly according to the invention can be constructed in various ways. As shown in FIG. 2, caliper 11 includes a bridge 12 having an inboard portion 13 and an outboard portion 14, those two portions being joined by a central portion 15. … The inboard side 13 of the bridge has a cylinder 19 mounted thereto, that cylinder 19 generally being known as a pot. The pot 19 has hydraulic fluid connections 20 for supplying pressurized fluid to the cylinder, and a piston 21 is slidable within the cylinder for operating the brakes.
wherein an orientation of the first face (24) and the second face (26) relative to one another and/or to the piston movement axis (A) remains constant under load.{ (4) …"Axial" deflection on the other hand means perpendicular to lateral deflection and parallel to the axis of the disc, i.e., in the direction of the axis of the caliper cylinder. It is desirable that axial deflection be kept low.} With the construction shown in FIGS. 8 and 9 there will be lateral flexibility between pot and bridge permitting parallel movement and engagement of the pad assemblies (not shown) so that those pad assemblies avoid the tapered wear problems referred to above with reference to FIG. 1. However, the axial rigidity ensures that no taper occurs in a radial direction.} Orientation relative to each other constant is interpreted as parallel.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims 1, 2, 5- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sergent, N. 2010, Analysis and Optimisation of Disc Brake Calipers (“SER”) in view of US 5022500 A Wang; Nui (“WAN”)
Regarding Claim 1 SER discloses a method for structurally optimizing a brake caliper,
wherein the method is performed based on a computer-implemented model (30) of the brake caliper (10), caliper model, prescribing a boundary condition according to which an orientation of the first face (24) and the second face (26) relative to one another and/or to the piston movement axis (A) remains constant under load; performing a structural optimization of the caliper model (30) taking into account said boundary condition. { { p 115 .4.1 Computer aided modelling Figure 5-36 shows the model of the entire caliper assembly which includes the disc but not the actuating cylinder. The 3D modelling of the brake assembly was performed by Robinet (2008) using the software I-DEAS. These models were used but FE analysis were repeated with different boundary conditions; p259 A novel methodology was developed for caliper structural design optimisation, which uses Finite Element Analysis and topology optimisation software.}
SER teaches the general structural optimization of brake calipers. SER does not explicitly teach, however WAN teaches
the brake caliper (10) having a first face (24) and a second face (26) that are spaced apart from one another along a piston movement axis (A), wherein the first and second face (24, 26) are connected by a bridge section (22) of the caliper (10), {See at least (1) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS (2) A disc brake assembly according to the invention can be constructed in various ways. As shown in FIG. 2, caliper 11 includes a bridge 12 having an inboard portion 13 and an outboard portion 14, those two portions being joined by a central portion 15. … The inboard side 13 of the bridge has a cylinder 19 mounted thereto, that cylinder 19 generally being known as a pot. The pot 19 has hydraulic fluid connections 20 for supplying pressurized fluid to the cylinder, and a piston 21 is slidable within the cylinder for operating the brakes.}
prescribing a boundary condition according to which an orientation of the first face (24) and the second face (26) relative to one another and/or to the piston movement axis (A) remains constant under load; { (4) …"Axial" deflection on the other hand means perpendicular to lateral deflection and parallel to the axis of the disc, i.e., in the direction of the axis of the caliper cylinder. It is desirable that axial deflection be kept low. (17) With the construction shown in FIGS. 8 and 9 there will be lateral flexibility between pot and bridge permitting parallel movement and engagement of the pad assemblies (not shown) so that those pad assemblies avoid the tapered wear problems referred to above with reference to FIG. 1. However, the axial rigidity ensures that no taper occurs in a radial direction.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SER that teaches structural optimization of brake calipers and WAN that teaches a specific caliper design emphasizing the need of avoiding axial displacement. It would be motivated to do so in order to obtain the advantage of having even loading being applied by the pad assemblies and reducing wear.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN.
2(1) Regarding claim 2 SER/WAN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SER further teaches
manufacturing the brake caliper (10) based on the structurally optimized caliper model (30) and by means of a generative manufacturing process.
{p240 8.4.2 Manufacturing and testing - Several methods of prototype manufacturing were investigated. p2 second d para from bottom- The brake calipers were designed, optimized, validated, as well as 3D printed in titanium with selective laser melting (SLM); 8.4.2.3 Rapid manufacturing using Selective Laser Sintering. }
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN.
5(1) Regarding claim 5 SSER/WAN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. WAN further teaches
wherein no or at least less restrictive boundary conditions are prescribed for deformations of the first and second face (24, 26) in directions extending at an angle and in particular orthogonally to the piston movement axis (A) {(17) With the construction shown in FIGS. 8 and 9 there will be lateral flexibility between pot and bridge permitting parallel movement and engagement of the pad assemblies (not shown) so that those pad assemblies avoid the tapered wear problems referred to above with reference to FIG. 1. However, the axial rigidity ensures that no taper occurs in a radial direction.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SER/WAN and further teaching of WAN. One would be motivated to do so to avoid tapering and obtain the advantage of obtaining a better caliper design.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN.
6(1) Regarding claim 6 SER/WAN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SER further teaches
wherein the structural optimization is performed with respect to at least one of the following targets: - weight; - deformation behavior and/or stiffness; - natural frequency; - mass distribution; - additional brake fluid intake during brake activation; - thermal distribution within the caliper (10). { Abstract A novel methodology to optimize caliper design was developed, using non-linear contact Finite Element Analysis and topology optimisation, to generate lightweight, high performance brake calipers.p211 The new optimised designed would be 12% lighter than the original caliper, which
represents a reduction in mass of 135g.}
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN.
7(1) Regarding claim SER/WAN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SER also teaches
wherein the method further includes: - defining locally admissible degrees of stiffness within the caliper (10); wherein the structural optimization takes said locally admissible degrees of stiffness into account. {The most common way of implementing this strategy is to give each element of a
meshed volume a "density" factor, ρ, so that (Bendsoe and Sigmund, 2003):… With Ω the design volume, V the maximum volume of the component, x an element of the design volume, E(x) the stiffness tensor at the element x, E0 the stiffness tensor of the isotropic material and ρ(x) the "density" factor of element x. To avoid having to solve a discrete valued design problem (ρ=0 or ρ=1 only), ρ(x) is a
ontinuous variable function, varying from 0 to 1. The "density" factor applies to the stiffness tensor so it represents a local reduction in material stiffness as well as reduction in mass density. The simplest topology optimization problem is a minimum compliance problem (maximum stiffness).} locally admissible degree of stiffness interpreted as the stiffness tensor.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN.
8(1) Regarding claim SER/WAN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SER further teaches
wherein the structural optimization includes varying at least one of the following with respect to at least one form feature or at least one section of the caliper (10), the form feature or section being preferably comprised by the bridge section (22): - a positioning of said form feature or section; - an orientation of said form feature or section; - a dimensioning of said form feature or section; - a density of said form feature or section; - a stiffness of said form feature or section. {p170 to investigate the influence of several design parameters: coefficient of friction at the abutments, geometry of the abutements, size and position of the pistons. The first part of this chapter focuses on static loading, the second part on dynamic loading.; 7.3.2 Optimisation results 7.3.2.1 Material distribution The output of a topology optimisation is a meshed volume (identical to the designable volume) with a distribution of "densities". Each finite element is given a density.}
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN.
9(8) Regarding claim 9 SER/WAN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SER further teaches teaches
wherein the form feature is one of a recess or cut-out (25), a rib (27) or web, a thinned portion, a thickened portion {p37 The two models are noticeably asymmetrical about the "xy" plane, with the outboard side of the caliper looking stiffer than the inboard side. They also seem to have very similar features: the geometry of the bridge and the various reinforcements are comparableIn that case, the abutment and the pad are cut with an angle α.; The model with elements of 0.1 density and higher seems to be overall "thicker" than the 0.5 density model.}
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN.
10(1) Regarding claim 10 SER/WAN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SER also teaches
wherein as a further boundary condition for the structural optimization an admissible deformation of the bridge section (22) is prescribed, in particular a permissible axial deformation.{ p202 The boundary condition set was chosen to replicate as closely as possible the load case
of the caliper in normal operating conditions. The optimisation parameters are set to
create a caliper as light as possible with limited TFD: …- The optimisation constraints are defined in terms of displacement: o Maximum combined displacement of 0.3mm for the caliper abutments and contact area between the pads and the bridge section.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sergent, N. 2010, Analysis and Optimisation of Disc Brake Calipers (“SER”) in view of US 5022500 A Wang; Nui (“WAN”) n further view of Autodesk “Using Enforced Displacements in a Nonlinear Analysis with Autodesk Nastran”, Feb 2017 https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/tsarticles/ts/3P7GzK4slv5rqAHdLnEIpQ.html
(“AUT”)
3(1) Regarding claim 3 SER/WAN teaches the limitations of the parent claim and constraints on axial displacement does not teach, however AUT teaches
wherein prescribing the boundary condition includes: - selecting a plurality of nodes (51-53) or other model elements comprised by the first face (24) and a plurality of nodes (51-53) or other model elements comprised by the second face (26); and - prescribing for each of the first and second face (24, 26) a uniform axial displacement of their respective nodes (51-53) or other model elements. { {Apply the enforced displacement in the appropriate direction. Constrain the same nodes/surfaces/curves in the direction of the enforced displacement. It is important that only the nodes that have the enforced displacement are constrained in the direction of the displacement. All other constraints will be treated as actual boundary conditions.
}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SER/Wan that teaches brake caliper structural optimization using Finite Element and specific boundary conditions with specific displacement constraints with AUT that teaches how to prescribe in FE nodes to enforce displacements in certain directions. It would be motivated to do so to enforce the displacement in the specific axial direction as needed, using the commercial FEA SW.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN/AUT.
Claim 4 is rejected rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sergent, N. 2010, Analysis and Optimisation of Disc Brake Calipers (“SER”) in view of US 5022500 A Wang; Nui (“WAN”) n further view of Autodesk “Using Enforced Displacements in a Nonlinear Analysis with Autodesk Nastran”, Feb 2017 https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/tsarticles/ts/3P7GzK4slv5rqAHdLnEIpQ.html
(“AUT”) in further view of Pishad, A. R. Advanced design of brake calipers, Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2012 (“PIS”)
4(3) Regarding claim 4 teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SER/WAN/AUT does not teach, however PIS teaches
wherein the uniform axial displacement of the first face (24) is different from the uniform axial deflection of the second face (26). {{p107 Therefore the new idea is, if asymmetric congurations in the Pareto-optimal set always yield better results that symmetric ones under the same load configuration. For further testing this idea, the associated symmetric case is generated and the objective functions are compared. The associated symmetric case means that for each case all the cross section data are extracted and inserted in the built model; however, the node positions are maintained
from the original design.p114 Whereas in \case 2" other than obf4 all other objective functions
in the asymmetric case has lower value. \case 1" depicts another draw between two
solutions and in \case 19" the asymmetric one seems to be the winner.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SER/WAN/AUT and PIS. PIS teaches that asymmetric constraints may lead to superior results and thus would be motivated to try from the two options, same or different displacements, in order to obtain the advantage of obtaining a better caliper design.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SER/WAN/AUT/PIS.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DE 102017101028 A1
US 20080185243 A1
CN 205956262 U
Tyflopoulos et al, Optimization of Brake Calipers Using Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing, Applied Sciences, 11(4), 1437; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041437, Feb 2021
Pan, Impact analysis of contact symmetrical caliper structure on brake squeal, Journal of Vibration and Control 2021, Vol. 27(19–20) 2180–2191
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights