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
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 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkisian et al. (US-20210364053-A1) (Applicant cited) in view of Loukus et al. (US 20140272451 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sarkisian discloses a lightweight automotive brake disc (see Figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0053), comprising a disc cap (hub mounting portion 106) and a disc body (friction portions 108, 110 and thermal management portion 112, see Fig. 2) that are metallurgically connected in a circumferential direction (the brake component is formed as a cast MMC brake component using molten casting metal/casting alloy, see ¶¶ 0049, 0055-56), wherein the disc cap is made of a first aluminum-based material (hub mounting portion 106 which is composed of monolithic casting metal, e.g., aluminum), the disc body is made of a second aluminum-based material (wear or friction portions 108 and 110 are comprised of entirely MMC material), the first aluminum-based material consists of a ceramic reinforcing phase with a volume content of 0 to 30% and a balance of an aluminum alloy matrix (monolithic aluminum casting metal of hub mounting portion 106 has 0% ceramic reinforcing phase, which falls within the claimed range, see ¶ 0053), and an alloy element content of the aluminum alloy matrix in the first aluminum-based material is less than or equal to an alloy element content of the aluminum alloy matrix in the second aluminum-based material (the monolithic aluminum portion and MMC portion are formed using aluminum/casting alloy matrix material, see ¶¶ 0044, 0049, 0056);
when the alloy element content of the aluminum alloy matrix in the first aluminum-based material is equal to the alloy element content of the aluminum alloy matrix in the second aluminum-based material, a volume content of the ceramic reinforcing phase in the first aluminum-based material is not equal to a volume content of the ceramic reinforcing phase in the second aluminum-based material (hub mounting portion 106 has 0% ceramic reinforcing phase, while the MMC wear/friction portions 108, 110 include ceramic reinforcing phase, see ¶¶ 0053-56).
Sarkisian does not expressly disclose the second aluminum-based material consists of a ceramic reinforcing phase with a volume content of 30% to 70% and a balance of an aluminum alloy matrix.
Loukus teaches a metal matrix composite brake disc having a section proximate the circumference of the brake disc comprising approximately 40% to 45% by volume of ceramic reinforcement and approximately 55% to 60% by volume of light alloy, which falls within the claimed range of 30% to 70% by volume ceramic reinforcing phase (see ¶ 0068). Loukus further teaches that the light alloy may be an aluminum alloy containing ceramic particles and/or fibers (see ¶ 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarkisian’s MMC wear/friction portions to include approximately 40% to 45% by volume ceramic reinforcement, as taught by Loukus, because Loukus teaches that providing a higher concentration of ceramic material at the rotor friction region improves heat-handling capacity and thermal management, controls thermal expansion and reduces thermal stresses during braking (see ¶¶ 0066-68, 0074, 0077-83).
Regarding claim 2, Sarkisian as modified discloses the lightweight automotive brake disc according to claim 1, and further discloses aluminum-based MMC brake components, wherein the metal alloys utilized in the exemplary MMCs include aluminum, magnesium, titanium, and copper (see ¶¶ 0042, 0044).
Sarkisian does not expressly disclose wherein the aluminum alloy matrix is a two series or six series aluminum alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known two series aluminum alloy matrix, such as an aluminum-copper-magnesium alloy, for the aluminum based MMC braking components of Sarkisian because Sarkisian expressly teaches aluminum-based MMC brake components and identifies aluminum, magnesium, and copper as suitable alloy constituents for the MMC material, and selection of a known aluminum alloy matrix would have been a routine material selection to provide a lightweight MMC brake rotor having suitable strength, wear resistance, corrosion resistance, and thermal properties.
Regarding claim 3, Sarkisian as modified discloses the lightweight automotive brake disc according to claim 2, wherein the two series aluminum alloy is Al—Cu—Mg series alloy.
Sarkisian does not expressly disclose the specific two-series aluminum alloy as Al—Cu—Mg series alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an Al—Cu—Mg series alloy as the aluminum alloy matrix in Sarkisian because Sarkisian expressly identifies aluminum, copper, and magnesium as suitable alloy constituents for the MMC material, and using a known aluminum-copper-magnesium allot would have been a predictable material selection for an aluminum MMC brake component intended to be lightweight while maintaining suitable mechanical and thermal properties.
Regarding claim 6, Sarkisian as modified discloses the lightweight automobile brake disc according to claim 1, wherein the disc cap (hub mounting portion 106) comprises a cap body and a cap brim, the disc body comprises a wear/friction portion (108, 110) and a connecting portion (112), and the hub mounting portion (106) and disc body are formed as a cast MMC braking component such that an axial outer sidewall of the cap brim is metallurgically connected to an axial inner sidewall of the connecting portion in the circumferential direction (see Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶ 0049, 0053-0055).
Regarding claim 7, Sarkisian as modified discloses the lightweight automobile brake disc according to claim 6, wherein the axial outer sidewall of the cap brim is provided with a plurality of protruding portions or receiving openings along the circumferential direction, correspondingly, the axial inner sidewall of the connecting portion is provided with a plurality of receiving openings or protruding portions along the circumferential direction; when the cap brim is metallurgically connected to the connecting portion, the protruding portion is arranged in the receiving opening (under BRI, fasteners 1030/integrally formed fasteners correspond to protruding portions, and fastening locations/radially oriented open slots correspond to receiving openings; see Sarkisian ¶¶ 0074-77).
To the extent Sarkisian does not expressly disclose the protruding portions/receiving openings at the metallurgical interface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sarkisian’s corresponding protrusion/opening fastening arrangement at the interface between the hub/cap portion and disc/body portion because Sarkisian teaches that the slot-to-fastener connection permits radial expansion of the disc without transmitting radial forces to the hub, while still transmitting torque or moment forces for braking. Thus, the modification would predictably reduce thermal-expansion stress at the disc/hub interface while maintaining torque transmission during braking (see Sarkisian ¶¶ 0075-77).
Regarding claim 8, Sarkisian as modified discloses the lightweight automobile brake disc according to claim 7, wherein a length direction of the protruding portion is parallel to or forms at an angle with a radial direction of the brake disc (Sarkisian discloses fastening locations 1026 having radially oriented open slots, and fasteners 1030 extending into the fastening locations to connect the disc 1010 and hub 1020; see Sarkisian ¶¶ 0075-77).
For purposes of examination, under the BRI, the radially oriented open-slot/fastener arrangement teaches or suggests that the received protruding portion extends in a direction parallel to the radial direction of the brake disc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the protruding/receiving arrangement in Sarkisian along the radial direction because Sarkisian teaches that this orientation allows radial relative movement between the disc and hub caused by thermal expansion, thereby reducing stress transmitted to the hub while maintaining rotational coupling for braking (see Sarkisian ¶¶ 0075-77).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkisian et al. (US-20210364053-A1) in view of Oezer et al. (DE-102011012135-A1) (Applicant cited).
Regarding claim 4, Sarkisian discloses the lightweight automobile brake disc according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic reinforcing phase in the first aluminum-based material is a ceramic reinforcing particle or a ceramic reinforcing fiber (see Sarkisian ¶¶ 0054, 0056).
Sarkisian does not expressly disclose when the ceramic reinforcing phase in the first aluminum-based material is the ceramic reinforcing particle, an average particle diameter of the ceramic reinforcing particle in the first aluminum-based material is 10 μm to 40 μm.
Oezer teaches when the ceramic reinforcing phase is the ceramic reinforcing particle, an average particle diameter of the ceramic reinforcing particle is 10 μm to 40 μm (see Oezer ¶ 0043, teaching silicon carbide particles having an average grain size of 5 μm to 30 μm, which overlaps the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ceramic reinforcing particles of Sarkisian to have the particle size taught by Oezer because Oezer teaches that the type, proportion, size and shape of the hard material particles affect the mechanical and thermal properties of the aluminum matrix composite brake disc, including hardness, strength, fatigue strength, thermal shock resistance, thermal conductivity, and thermal expansion behavior. Thus, selecting Oezer’s known brake-disc particle size would have improved the wear, strength, and thermal performance of Sarkisian’s lightweight MMC brake component (see Oezer ¶¶ 0005-0006, 0043).
Regarding claim 5, Sarkisian discloses the lightweight automobile brake disc according to claim 4, wherein the ceramic reinforcing phase in the second aluminum-based material is the ceramic reinforcing particle (see Sarkisian ¶¶ 0054, 0056).
Sarkisian does not expressly disclose the average particle size of the ceramic reinforcing particle in the second aluminum-based material is 45 μm to 100 μm.
Oezer teaches the average particle size of the ceramic reinforcing particle in the second aluminum-based material is 45 μm to 100 μm (see Oezer ¶ 0043, teaching aluminum nitride particles having an average grain size of 10 μm to 60 μm, which overlaps the claimed range at 45 μm to 60 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ceramic reinforcing particles of Sarkisian’s second aluminum-based MMC material to have the particle size taught by Oezer because Oezer teaches that the hard material particles and aluminum matrix alloy provide high thermal conductivity and excellent mechanical, thermal, and tribological properties for a brake disc friction ring. Thus, using Oezer’s known particle size would have predictably improved the thermal conductivity, hardness, strength, and wear resistance of Sarkisian’s MMC friction/wear material (b).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkisian et al. (US-20210364053-A1) in view of Huo et al. (CN-112743074-A) (Applicant cited).
Regarding claim 9, Sarkisian discloses a method for preparing the lightweight automobile brake disc according to claim 1 (Sarkisian discloses methods of making an MMC brake disc/braking component having MMC portions and aluminum/casting-alloy portions, including forming one or more ceramic preforms, placing the preforms into a mold, and forming the MMC brake component; see Sarkisian ¶¶ 0049-0050, 0056-0059).
Sarkisian does not expressly disclose pre-forming the first aluminum-based material and the second aluminum-based material, respectively, or pre-forming one of the first aluminum-based material and the second aluminum-based material and filling the other of the first aluminum-based material and the second aluminum-based material with powders; then pressing, sintering, and hot-press shaping to obtain the lightweight automobile brake disc.
Huo teaches pre-forming an aluminum-based composite material powder, then pressing, sintering, and hot-press shaping to obtain a lightweight brake disc. In particular, Huo teaches preparing an aluminum-based powder metallurgy composite brake disc by a combination of cold press forming, sintering, and hot press shaping, including filling aluminum-based composite powder into a cold pressing mold, cold pressing the powder to form a brake disc blank, sintering the blank, placing the brake disc precursor into a hot-pressing mold, and pressing/shaping the precursor to obtain the brake disc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of preparing the MMC brake component of Sarkisian to use the powder-metallurgy preparation process of Huo, including powder filling/pre-forming, pressing, sintering, and hot press shaping, because both references are directed to lightweight aluminum based composite brake disc with reduced pores/cracks, near-net size, fewer procedures, lower cost, and improved wear resistance/strength. Therefore, the combined teachings render obvious the method of claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkisian et al. (US-20210364053-A1) and Huo et al. (CN-112743074-A) and further in view of Li et al. (CN-107100949-A) (Applicant cited).
Regarding claim 10, Sarkisian as modified, discloses the method for preparing the lightweight automobile brake disc according to claim 9.
Sarkisian does not expressly disclose wherein a pressure of the pre-forming is 30 MPa to 70 MPa; a pressure of the pressing is 200 MPa to 400 MPa;
the sintering is performed under the following condition: heating to 570° C. to 640° C. with a heating rate of 5° C./min to 10° C./min, and keeping for 0.5 h to 2 h;
a temperature of the hot-press shaping is 530° C. to 570° C., and a pressure of the hot press shaping is 200 MPa to 300 MPa.
Huo teaches a method of preparing an aluminum-based powder metallurgy composite brake disc by cold press forming, sintering, and hot press shaping, wherein the cold press forming pressure is 150 MPa to 300 MPa, which overlaps the claimed pressing pressure of 200 MPa to 400 MPa; the sintering includes heating to 580° C. to 620° C. at a heating rate of 8° C./min to 15° C./min and holding for 25 min to 45 min, which overlaps the claimed heating to 570° C. to 640° C. with a heating rate of 5° C./min to 10° C./min and keeping for 0.5 h to 2 h; and the hot press shaping is performed at 500° C. to 600° C. and 150 MPa to 300 MPa, which overlaps the claimed hot-press shaping temperature of 530° C. to 570° C. and pressure of 200 MPa to 300 MPa.
Li teaches preparing aluminum based composite brake disc portions by applying pressure of 20 MPa to 40 MPa during hot pressing/bonding of high-silicon-carbide and low-silicon-carbide aluminum-based composite disc blanks, which overlaps the claimed pre-forming pressure of 30 MPa to 70 MPa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of preparing the MMC brake component of Sarkisian with the cold press forming, sintering, and hot press shaping parameters of Huo, and further to use the overlapping preliminary forming/bonding pressure taught by Li, because Huo teaches that controlling the cold pressing, sintering, and hot press shaping parameters improves compactness, reduces pores and cracks, and forms a near-net-shape aluminum-based composite brake disc, while Li teaches that an overlapping pressure range is suitable for bonding aluminum-based composite brake disc regions. Therefore, selecting overlapping known powder-metallurgy pressure and temperature parameters for preparing an aluminum-based composite brake disc would have been an obvious optimization of known result-effective process variables.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/K.A.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights