DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 11-13 and 15-22 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 11-13, 15, and 18-22 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed ratio of CsAlF4 to BaF2 ranging from 25 to 200 is new matter because the specification as originally filed does not disclose this feature. The specification does not define a ratio between CsAlF4 to BaF2 or calculate such ratio to be between 25 and 200. Therefore, the claim does not comply with the written description requirement because the claimed feature is not found in the original specification as filed.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is likewise rejected for containing new matter, as it depends directly on rejected claim 21.
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 21 and 22 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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is indefinite because it does not recite the units necessary to determine the basis for calculating the ratio of CsAlF4 to BaF2. Without disclosing the units, it is unknown whether the ratio of 25 to 200 is based on weight, molar, volume ratio, or some combination thereof, for instance. Thus, the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is indefinite because the “total amount” lacks units. It is unknown whether the total amount of CsAlF4 and BaF2 is based on weight, mass, moles, volume, etc. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Further regarding claim 22, assuming “total amount” of the CsAlF4 and BaF2 is based on weight percent, the claim is further indefinite because the total amount is not numerically consistent with the ranges defined in parent claim 11. The minimum total amount of CsAlF4 and BaF2 is 6 wt.% (CsAlF4 lower limit is 1 wt.% and BaF2 lower limit is 5 wt.%, with parent claim 13 selecting BaF2 as the second component). However, claim 22 recites a minimum total amount of 4, which falls outside the permissible minimum based on the range boundaries of claim 11. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0239882 (A1) to Born et al. (“Born”) in view of US 2013/0059162 (A1) to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Born is directed to a method of brazing aluminum and titanium parts using flux (brazing flux). Title; abstract; para. [0001], [0002]; claim 1. The flux is based on an alkali metal fluoroaluminate, with the preferred flux composed of potassium tetrafluoroaluminate (KAlF4). Para. [0007], [0014].
The flux may further comprise cesium fluoroaluminate, which can be present in the form of cesium tetrafluoroaluminate (CsAlF4). Para. [0018]. The amount is preferably equal to or lower than 10% by weight of the total flux (para. [0018]; claim 3), which overlaps the claimed range.
The alkali metal fluoroaluminate forms the base of the flux. Claim 1. For example, when the flux comprises potassium fluoroaluminate and cesium fluoroaluminate, the cesium fluoroaluminate is 0.1-10% by weight. Claim 3. This suggests that the potassium fluoroaluminate is remainder, i.e., 90-99.9 wt.%, which overlaps the claimed range.
The flux may further comprise an additive comprising metal cations of metals 2 to 5 of main groups of the periodic system of elements (Groups 2-5 of the Periodic Table of Elements) introduced in the form of fluorides (second component). Para. [0019]. An example element is strontium (Sr). Para. [0019]. Although barium (Ba) is not specifically named, barium is a Group 2 element in the Periodic Table of Elements and is therefore understood as being disclosed by Born.
Born is silent regarding the amount of the Group 2-5 fluoride additive in the flux.
Kobayashi is drawn to a flux composition used for brazing aluminum alloys. Abstract; para. [0002], [0008]-[0011]. The principal component is Component [A] (e.g., KAlF4) and the additive (second component) is Component [B] (e.g., barium fluoride (BaF2)). Para. [0028], [0029], [0032].
Component [B] is present in an amount of 1-300 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of Component [A]. Para. [0014], [0034], [0035]. An example quantity of Component [B] is 10 parts by mass BaF2 to 100 parts by mass of Component [A] (Table 1 – Example 2), which converts to about 9.1 wt.% of the total flux and falls within the claimed range.
The Component [B] additive produces a flux that has better wettability and better brazeability. Kobayashi at para. [0012], [0014], [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected BaF2 for the Group 2-5 fluoride additive in Born and to have added it in the amount of 1-300 parts by mass, as taught by Kobayashi, relative to the alkali metal fluoroaluminate because these additives improve surface quality or flow of the flux (Born at para. [0019]) as well as promote wettability and brazeability (Kobayashi at para. [0012], [0014], [0032]).
With respect to the claim limitation directed to Li3AlF6, this component is optional and not required to be included in the claimed invention. Therefore, neither Born nor Kobayashi is required to disclose it.
Regarding claim 15, Born teaches adding thickener, binder, and solvents (at least one brazing additive) to form a paste (brazing composition). Para. [0020]-[0024]. Flux additives can also be added to improve corrosion resistance, enhance adhesion, and reduce odors. Para. [0019].
Kobayashi teaches that the flux can be suspended in a solvent such as water (at least one brazing additive) to form a paste or slurry (brazing flux composition). Para. [0052].
Regarding claim 18, Born does not teach or require KF, NaF, LiF, and CaF2 and is zero or substantially absent (free of KF in amount of lower than 0.1% by weight).
Regarding claim 19, Born does not teach a required addition of flux components that are not explicitly recited in the claims, as supported by Born’s claim 3 and para. [0019]. Even if Born were to teach the inclusion of non-claimed components, there is no evidence of record at this time that those non-claimed components “materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention.” MPEP § 2111.03(III). Therefore, Born in view of Kobayashi meet the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” as recited in the preamble of claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, as noted in the above 112(b) rejection, the units for calculating the claimed ratio is not known. However, given that Born and Kobayashi disclose quantities that overlap substantial portions of the claimed ranges, overlap with the claimed ratio would also be expected.
Regarding claim 22, Born teaches that cesium tetrafluoroaluminate (CsAlF4) is preferably equal to or lower than 10% by weight of the total flux. Para. [0018]; claim 3. Kobayashi teaches that Component [B] (BaF2) is present in an amount of 1-300 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of Component [A] (para. [0014], [0034], [0035]), with an example quantity of Component [B] being 10 parts by mass BaF2 to 100 parts by mass of Component [A] (Table 1 – Example 2), which converts to about 9.1 wt.% of the total flux. Thus, the sum total of CsAlF4 and BaF2 ranges from zero percent to 19.1 wt.%, which overlaps the claimed range if assuming that the claimed “total amount” is weight percent (note comments in above 112(b) rejection) and when an Example BaF2 quantity is 10 parts by mass.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Born in view of Kobayashi and further in view of US 2013/0037172 (A1) to Garcia-Juan et al. (“Garcia-Juan”).
Regarding claim 12, Born is directed to a method of brazing aluminum and titanium parts using flux (brazing flux). Title; abstract; para. [0001], [0002]; claim 1. The flux is based on an alkali metal fluoroaluminate, with the preferred flux composed of potassium tetrafluoroaluminate (KAlF4). Para. [0007], [0014].
The flux may further comprise cesium fluoroaluminate, which can be present in the form of cesium tetrafluoroaluminate (CsAlF4). Para. [0018]. The amount is preferably equal to or lower than 10% by weight of the total flux (para. [0018]; claim 3), which overlaps the claimed range.
The alkali metal fluoroaluminate forms the base of the flux. Claim 1. For example, when the flux comprises potassium fluoroaluminate and cesium fluoroaluminate, the cesium fluoroaluminate is 0.1-10% by weight. Claim 3. This suggests that the potassium fluoroaluminate is remainder, i.e., 90-99.9 wt.%, which overlaps the claimed range.
The flux may further comprise an additive comprising metal cations of metals 2 to 5 of main groups of the periodic system of elements (Groups 2-5 of the Periodic Table of Elements) introduced in the form of fluorides (second component). Para. [0019]. An example element is strontium (Sr). Para. [0019]. Although barium (Ba) is not specifically named, barium is a Group 2 element in the Periodic Table of Elements and is therefore understood as being disclosed by Born.
Born is silent regarding the amount of the Group 2-5 fluoride additive in the flux.
Kobayashi is drawn to a flux composition used for brazing aluminum alloys. Abstract; para. [0002], [0008]-[0011]. The principal component is Component [A] (e.g., KAlF4) and the additive (second component) is Component [B] (e.g., barium fluoride (BaF2)). Para. [0028], [0029], [0032].
Component [B] is present in an amount of 1-300 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of Component [A]. Para. [0014], [0034], [0035]. An example quantity of Component [B] is 10 parts by mass BaF2 to 100 parts by mass of Component [A] (Table 1 – Example 2), which converts to about 9.1 wt.% of the total flux and falls within the claimed range.
The Component [B] additive produces a flux that has better wettability and better brazeability. Kobayashi at para. [0012], [0014], [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected BaF2 for the Group 2-5 fluoride additive in Born and to have added it in the amount of 1-300 parts by mass, as taught by Kobayashi, relative to the alkali metal fluoroaluminate because these additives improve surface quality or flow of the flux (Born at para. [0019]) as well as promote wettability and brazeability (Kobayashi at para. [0012], [0014], [0032]).
With respect to the claim limitation directed to Li3AlF6, this component is optional and not required to be included in the claimed invention. Therefore, neither Born nor Kobayashi is required to disclose it.
Born and Kobayashi do not teach the presence of Li3AlF6.
Garcia-Juan is directed to a flux for use on aluminum and aluminum alloys. Abstract. The basic flux contains KAlF4 and CsAlF4, among other fluoroaluminates. Para. [0024]. Garcia-Juan teaches that adding Li3AlF6 is a Li salt additive that can be added to improve the resistance of brazed parts against corrosion. Para. [0028]. A preferable amount is equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight Li+, corresponding to equal to or greater than 1% by weight Li3AlF6 (para. [0028)]), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added Li salt additives, such as Li3AlF6, to the flux of Born in view of Kobayashi in order to improve the corrosion resistance of the part being brazed.
Regarding claim 20, Born does not teach a required addition of flux components that are not explicitly recited in the claims, as supported by Born’s claim 3 and para. [0019]. Even if Born were to teach the inclusion of non-claimed components, there is no evidence of record at this time that those non-claimed components “materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention.” MPEP § 2111.03(III). Therefore, Born in view of Kobayashi and Garcia-Juan meet the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” as recited in the preamble of claim 20.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view Born.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Kobayashi is drawn to a flux composition used for brazing aluminum alloys (brazing flux). Abstract; para. [0002], [0008]-[0011]. The principal component is Component [A] containing one or more fluorides and an additive Component [B] (second component). Para. [0009]-[0011], [0028].
Component [A] may be KAlF4. Para. [0029]. Component [B] may be barium fluoride (BaF2). Para. [0032].
Component [B] is present in an amount of 1-300 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of Component [A]. Para. [0014], [0034], [0035]. An example quantity is 10 parts by mass BaF2 to 100 parts by mass of Component [A]. Table 1 – Example 2. This converts to about 90.1 wt.% Component [A] and 9.1 wt.% Component [B], which fall within the claimed ranges.
Kobayashi does not teach the presence of CsAlF4 in the flux.
Born is directed to a flux for brazing aluminum and titanium parts. Abstract. The flux is based on an alkali metal fluoroaluminate. Para. [0007]. “Alkali metal” includes potassium (K) and cesium (Cs), and “fluoroaluminate” includes tetrafluoroaluminate (AlF4). Para. [0014]. The flux contains further additives such as those based on fluorides (e.g., strontium fluorides or fluorides of metals of the 2 to 5 main group of the Periodic Table of Elements). Para. [0019]. Although barium is not specifically named, barium (Ba) is a Group 2 element in the Periodic Table of Elements and is therefore understood as being disclosed by Born.
Born teaches that it is advantageous for the flux to contain both potassium fluoroaluminate and cesium fluoroaluminate (e.g., cesium tetrafluoroaluminate (CsAlF4)) because the combination permits the flux to be used to braze aluminum alloys containing magnesium. Para. [0018]. An example amount of cesium fluoroaluminate is equal to or lower than 10% by weight of the flux (para. [0018]; claim 3), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added cesium tetrafluoroaluminate in an amount of up to 10 wt.% to the flux of Kobayashi because its presence would allow the user to expand the brazing flux’s applicability to a wider variety of metal alloys such as aluminum alloys containing magnesium.
With respect to the claim limitation directed to Li3AlF6, this component is optional and not required to be included in the claimed invention. Therefore, neither Kobayashi nor Born is required to disclose it.
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi teaches that the flux can be suspended in a solvent such as water (at least one brazing additive) to form a paste or slurry (brazing flux composition). Para. [0052].
Born teaches adding thickener, binder, and solvents (at least one brazing additive) to form a paste (brazing composition). Para. [0020]-[0024]. Flux additives can also be added to improve corrosion resistance, enhance adhesion, and reduce odors. Para. [0019].
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi does not add NaF, LiF, and CaF2 and suggests intentionally leaving them out of the inventive flux. Para. [0006]. Thus, the claim limitation is satisfied, as the content of free KF is not limited when LiF, NaF, and CaF2 are not present in the flux.
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi does not teach a required addition of flux components that are not explicitly recited in the claims, as supported by Kobayashi’s Examples 1-11, Table 1, and claim 1. Even if Kobayashi were to teach the inclusion of non-claimed components, there is no evidence of record at this time that those non-claimed components “materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention.” MPEP § 2111.03(III). Therefore, Kobayashi in view of Born meet the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” as recited in the preamble of claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, as noted in the above 112(b) rejection, the units for calculating the claimed ratio is not known. However, given that Kobayashi and Born disclose quantities that overlap substantial portions of the claimed ranges, overlap with the claimed ratio would also be expected.
Regarding claim 22, Kobayashi teaches that Component [B] (BaF2) is present in an amount of 1-300 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of Component [A] (para. [0014], [0034], [0035]), with an example quantity of Component [B] being 10 parts by mass BaF2 to 100 parts by mass of Component [A] (Table 1 – Example 2), which converts to about 9.1 wt.% of the total flux. Born teaches that cesium tetrafluoroaluminate (CsAlF4) is preferably equal to or lower than 10% by weight of the total flux. Para. [0018]; claim 3. Thus, the sum total of CsAlF4 and BaF2 ranges from zero percent to 19.1 wt.%, which overlaps the claimed range if assuming that the claimed “total amount” is weight percent (note comments in above 112(b) rejection) and when an Example BaF2 quantity is 10 parts by mass.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Born and further in view of Garcia-Juan.
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi is drawn to a flux composition used for brazing aluminum alloys (brazing flux). Abstract; para. [0002], [0008]-[0011]. The principal component is Component [A] containing one or more fluorides and an additive Component [B] (second component). Para. [0009]-[0011], [0028].
Component [A] may be KAlF4. Para. [0029]. Component [B] may be barium fluoride (BaF2). Para. [0032].
Component [B] is present in an amount of 1-300 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of Component [A]. Para. [0014], [0034], [0035]. An example quantity is 10 parts by mass BaF2 to 100 parts by mass of Component [A]. Table 1 – Example 2. This converts to about 90.1 wt.% Component [A] and 9.1 wt.% Component [B], which fall within the claimed ranges.
Kobayashi does not teach the presence of CsAlF4 in the flux.
Born is directed to a flux for brazing aluminum and titanium parts. Abstract. The flux is based on an alkali metal fluoroaluminate. Para. [0007]. “Alkali metal” includes potassium (K) and cesium (Cs), and “fluoroaluminate” includes tetrafluoroaluminate (AlF4). Para. [0014]. The flux contains further additives such as those based on fluorides (e.g., strontium fluorides or fluorides of metals of the 2 to 5 main group of the Periodic Table of Elements). Para. [0019]. Although barium is not specifically named, barium (Ba) is a Group 2 element in the Periodic Table of Elements and is therefore understood as being disclosed by Born.
Born teaches that it is advantageous for the flux to contain both potassium fluoroaluminate and cesium fluoroaluminate (e.g., cesium tetrafluoroaluminate (CsAlF4)) because the combination permits the flux to be used to braze aluminum alloys containing magnesium. Para. [0018]. An example amount of cesium fluoroaluminate is equal to or lower than 10% by weight of the flux (para. [0018]; claim 3), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added cesium tetrafluoroaluminate in an amount of up to 10 wt.% to the flux of Kobayashi because its presence would allow the user to expand the brazing flux’s applicability to a wider variety of metal alloys such as aluminum alloys containing magnesium.
With respect to the claim limitation directed to Li3AlF6, this component is optional and not required to be included in the claimed invention. Therefore, neither Kobayashi nor Born is required to disclose it.
Kobayashi and Born do not teach the presence of Li3AlF6.
Garcia-Juan is directed to a flux for use on aluminum and aluminum alloys. Abstract. The basic flux contains KAlF4 and CsAlF4, among other fluoroaluminates. Para. [0024]. Garcia-Juan teaches that adding Li3AlF6 is a Li salt additive that can be added to improve the resistance of brazed parts against corrosion. Para. [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added Li salt additives, such as Li3AlF6, to the flux of Kobayashi in view of Born in order to improve the corrosion resistance of the part being brazed.
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi does not teach a required addition of flux components that are not explicitly recited in the claims, as supported by Kobayashi’s Examples 1-11, Table 1, and claim 1. Even if Kobayashi were to teach the inclusion of non-claimed components, there is no evidence of record at this time that those non-claimed components “materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention.” MPEP § 2111.03(III). Therefore, Kobayashi in view of Born meet the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” as recited in the preamble of claim 19.
Acknowledgment of Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 08/12/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 11-13, 15, and 18-22 based upon Born, Kobayashi, and Garcia-Juan, as set forth in the last and current Office actions. Comments on the merits of the declaration will be addressed throughout the Response to Arguments section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not select BaF2 or SrF2 in the claimed amount of less than 15 wt.% because Kobayashi ‘162 (US 2013/0059162 A1 to Kobayashi et al.) teaches a preferable BaF2 amount of 40 parts by mass per 100 parts per mass of the flux component (~30 wt.%), which is higher than the claimed amount.
In response, para. [0034] of Kobayashi ‘162 states the following (emphasis added):
For providing both satisfactory brazability and good economical efficiency, the upper limit is more preferably 80 parts by mass when the additive [B] is CeF3; and is 40 parts by mass when the additive [B] is BaF2.
Kobayashi ‘162 does not state that the preferable amount of BaF2 is equal to 40 parts by mass. Kobayashi ’162 instead states that a preferable amount of BaF2 has an upper limit of 40 parts by mass. Thus, the top of the preferred range identified by Kobayashi ‘162 is about 30 wt.%. This interpretation is further supported by Table 1 in Kobayashi ‘162, where inventive examples show BaF2 in the flux in various amounts ranging from 10 parts by mass (Example 2) to 80 parts by mass (Example 4), which is consistent with the broader Component/Additive [B] range of 1-300 parts by mass. In Example 2, the amount of 10 parts by mass of Component [B] per 100 parts by mass Component [A] is about 9.1 wt.%, which falls within the claimed range of 5-15 wt.%. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select an amount of BaF2 that falls within the claimed range because Kobayashi shows acceptable example quantities of BaF2 falling within the claimed range.
Applicant argues that the claimed selection of SrF2 and/or BaF2 as the second component has good brazing performance that is unexpected and shows greater than expected results in view of the cited art. Applicant refers to a previous 132 declaration (“Declaration-1”) as well as the 132 declaration filed on 08/12/2025 (“Declaration-2”).
Applicant states the performance of the flux depends on the second component/additive used. Applicant refers to Declaration-1, which tests of performance of fluxes containing second component/additive BaF2, SrF2, AlF3, CeF3, and TiF3, all of which were disclosed by Kobayashi ‘816 (US 2015/0211816 A1 to Kobayashi et al.) except SrF2, where Applicant alleges the good brazing performance of BaF2 and SrF2.
In response, it is first noted that Kobayashi ‘816 is not relied upon to reject the instant claims; however, the Examiner will take into consideration the merits of Declaration-1 as it pertains to Kobayashi ‘162 (applied in the current rejection) and the second component/additives taught therein (including strontium and cerium fluorides, for instance).
The argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s argument suggests that the presence of alternative additives in the prior art invalidates the prior art’s teaching of the claimed additive, and the disclosure of other alternatives is not a basis for a teaching away-type argument. See MPEP § 2123(II).
Applicant argues that Kobayashi ‘816 does not recognize the improved superior joint formed when the brazing composition includes BaF2, SrF2, and mixtures thereof.
In response, Kobayashi ‘816 is not being used to reject the claims in this Office action and therefore falls outside the scope of the current rejection.
It should be noted that Born teaches the claimed combination of potassium tetrafluoroaluminate, cesium fluoroaluminate, and Group 2-5 fluoride additives. These additives improve the brazing process, surface properties of the joint metal parts, corrosion resistance, and adhesion (Born at para. [0019]). Thus, the improvements to the brazing process are recognized.
With respect to the specific and individual performance of the fluxes, the data provided do not demonstrate distinguished improvements and unexpected results. Flux #3 (BaF2) in Declaration-1 has an overall ranking of C while Flux #11 (CeF3) has the same overall ranking of C. In the same declaration, Flux #10 contains CeF3 and has an overall ranking of A, indicating acceptable performance. Based on this, there is no distinction between the different fluorides.
Declaration-2 tests fluxes where amounts of KAlF4, CsAlF4, and BaF2 are varied. Flux #4 and Flux #6 fall within the claimed ranges and have an overall ranking of A. However, Flux #7 falls within the claimed ranges and have an overall ranking of C. Fluxes #1, #2, #3, and #5 contain BaF2 in amounts that fall below the claimed lower limit of 5 wt.% (CsAlF4 of Flux #1 falls below the claimed range and KAlF4 falls higher than the claimed range), but each has an overall ranking of A. The CsAlF4 and BaF2 of Flux #8 fall within the claimed ranges, and the flux contains KAlF4 in an amount less than the claimed lower limit of 80 wt.%, but has an overall ranking of A. Since the alleged unexpected results also occur outside the claimed ranges, the boundaries of the claimed ranges do not appear critical.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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, Keith D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
November 12, 2025