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 .
Re-open Prosecution
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12, 16-20 in view of Kucza have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO2007/131727A (WO’727) in view of Kucza (US 2002/0056492).
Status of Claims
Pending:
1-20, 22
Withdrawn:
13-15
Rejected:
1-12, 16-20, 22
Amended:
1
New:
21
Independent:
1
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.
Claims 1-12, 16-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2007/131727 (WO’727, previously cited) in view of Kucza et al (US 2002/0056492A).
WO’727 teaches a method of forming a brazing sheet clad product by process steps: of:
Claim 1
WO’727
(a) Cast core 3xxx
Cast core 3xxx
(p 2 line 1)
*absence of homogenization
Absence of homogenization
(p 8 line 11)
(b) Hot roll to 2.5-10 mm
Hot roll
(thickness not taught)
(c )Cold roll to 0.1-4 mm
(c ) interannealing 200-450°C (cl. 4)
Cold roll
(final thickness approx. 0.1-5 mm)
(d) Anneal to recrystallize
Optional intermediate anneal (wherein annealing 250-425C leads to recrystallization)
(p 8 lines 2-5, p 9 lines 14-15)
(e) Final cold roll w reduction 5 to <10%
(e ) thickness 0.1-3 mm (cl. 6)
Final cold roll
(final thickness approx. 0.1-5 mm)
(final cold rolling reduction not taught)
(p 11 line 3)
(f) Recovery anneal
200-420°C
(f) anneal 200-400C (cl. 2)
(f) anneal such that elongation ≥10% (cl. 3)
(f) anneal 250-380C (cl. 17)
(f) anneal such that elongation ≥14% (cl. 18)
Final anneal 250-425C
(p 9 lines 14-16)
Table 1: process steps of instant claims vs. prior art of WO’727
which meets the claimed process steps recited in instant claim 1 at steps a-f. WO’727 does not specify thickness after hot rolling occurs. However, it would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, given the disclosure of WO’727, to have hot rolled to a desired/ suitable thickness, such as the claimed 2.5-10 mm (claim 1), in order to create a suitable bonded clad product, as taught by WO’727 at claim 11.
WO’727 teaches said process produces a clad product comprising a 3xxx series core layer bonded to a 4xxx series cladding (see WO’727 p 9, 10). WO’727 (p 2, etc.) teaches said core layer comprises (in wt%):
Claim 1,
core alloy
Dependent claims
WO’727
Mn
0.5-1.8
0.6-1.5 (cl. 7)
0.6-1.25 (cl. 20)
0.5-1.5
Si
-1.5
-0.9 (cl. 8)
0.4-1.3
Fe
-0.7
0.06-0.60
Cu
-1.5
-1.2 (cl. 9)
-0.25 (cl. 10)
0.1-1.2
Mg
-1.0
-0.7 (cl. 5)
0.1-0.7 (cl. 19)
≤0.25
Cr
-0.25
0.05-0.2
Zr
-0.25
≤0.2
Ti
-0.25
≤0.2
Zn
-0.5
≤0.25
Table 2: Core alloy composition of instant claims vs. prior art of WO’727
which overlaps the core alloy composition in instant claim 1. In summary, WO’727 teaches a process of manufacturing a brazing sheet with a 3xxx aluminum alloy core of overlapping composition, clad with a 4xxx series aluminum alloy (p 4 lines 7-8), and processed by steps of casting, hot rolling, cold rolling, optional intermediate annealing, cold rolling to final thickness, final annealing (WO’727 at p 2, 8, 9).
Concerning a final anneal/recovery annealing step, WO’727 teaches the final temper for aluminum alloy clad sheet products can be adjusted, depending on the strength/ductility required/desired (WO’727 at p 9). WO’727 teaches a recovery anneal at 200-300°C (subsequent to cold rolling to final thickness) is sufficient to achieve a work hardened temper with good strength/elongation combination- in particular, with elongation of up to 20% post brazing (p 9, see also examples 16-23 in Table 1A and Table 2, compare with examples 1-15). Alternatively, WO’727 teaches final annealing at 300-425°C leads to a microstructure with recrystallized grains and is suitable for parts that require a high degree of forming (WO’727 p 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied a recovery anneal at 200-300°C (as taught by WO’727) or 300-425°C (as taught by WO’727), both of which overlap the claimed range of 200-420°C, after the final cold rolling of Kucza, in order to adjust the strength/elongation of the clad sheet, as taught by WO’727.
Changes in temperature, concentrations, or other process conditions of an old process does not impart patentability unless the recited ranges are critical, i.e. they produce a new and unexpected result. However, said parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the instant case, heat treating after cold rolling to a final thickness is taught to be a result effective variable from the prior art of WO’727- wherein the predictable result is adjusting the strength/elongation balance (i.e. improving the elongation while maintaining high strength).
WO’727 does not teach the cold rolling reduction at step (e ). However, Kucza teaches a step of strain hardening/cold rolling [0024-0025] in the amount of 2-10% is applied after initial cold rolling and annealing, is effective to lower LFM (liquid film migration), thereby improving the properties of a brazing sheet (see Kucza at Ex. 1 vs. Ex. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed a final deformation by cold rolling 5 to <10% as taught by Kucza, after the initial cold rolling and intermediate annealing taught by WO’727, in order to provide the predictable purpose of lowering the LFM and thereby improving the properties of the brazing sheet of WO’727. It is held that WO’727 together with Kucza has created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claims 2 and 17, which mentions recovery annealing, see above discussion of recovery annealing. The temperature of recovery anneal/final anneal in WO ‘727 overlaps those of the instant claims, and therefore meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claim 3, WO’727 teaches examples of brazing sheet products with elongations ≥10% (Table 2), which meets the instant minimum. Therefore, it is held to be within the scope of Kucza and WO’727 to perform a step of recovery annealing to achieve elongations >10%, as claimed.
Concerning claim 4, though Kucza does not teach another annealing step (beyond the mention of one intermediate annealing step prior to final cold rolling), WO’727 teaches that additional annealing steps can be added as needed, especially in the production of thinner gauges where multiple cold rolling reductions/high degree of cold rolling reduction is required (p 8 lines 2-5). It would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed an additional intermediate anneal (for the method of making the brazing sheet product of WO’727), in order to provide the predictable purpose of decreasing the strain (in particular for sheets with high amounts of strain/deformation), as taught by WO’727.
Concerning claim 5, 7-10, 19, 20 as set forth in Table 2 above, WO’727 teaches a core alloy with overlapping Mg, Mn, Cu, and Si ranges, and therefore meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claim 6, as set forth in Table 1 above, WO’727 teaches cold rolling to an overlapping final thickness, and therefore meets the claimed thickness limitation.
Concerning claim 11, WO’727 teaches cladding with a rate of 3-25% (abstract) thickness of brazing filler material to core material, which overlaps the claimed thickness range.
Concerning claim 12, WO’727 does not specify that any layer is present in between the brazing filler and the core material, and Fig.1a&1b, etc. of WO’727 appear to depict a product without any such layer; therefore WO’727 meets the instant limitation.
Concerning claim 16, as set forth above, the temperature of recrystallization anneal in WO’727 overlaps the range presently claimed, and therefore meets the claimed limitation.
Concerning claim 18, WO’727 teaches examples of brazing sheet products with elongations >14%, namely on page 15, product #19 Table 2. Therefore, it is held to be within the scope of WO’727 and Kucza to perform a step of recovery annealing to achieve elongations >14%, as claimed.
Concerning new claim 21, as set forth above, WO’727 together with Kuzca teach a process of manufacturing a brazing sheet with a 3xxx aluminum alloy core of overlapping composition, clad with a 4xxx series aluminum alloy (p 4 lines 7-8), and processed by steps of casting, hot rolling, cold rolling, optional intermediate annealing, cold rolling to final thickness, final annealing substantially as presently claimed.
With respect to the prima facie case of obvious set forth above, applicant has not clearly shown specific unexpected results with respect to the prior art of record or criticality of the instant claimed ranges (such as criticality of the claimed alloying ranges, criticality of the claimed processing parameters, etc.), wherein said results must be fully commensurate in scope with the instantly claimed ranges, etc. see MPEP 716.02 d.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 3/23/26 applicant added new claim 22, and submitted various arguments traversing the rejections of record. No new matter has been added.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12, 16-20 in view of Kucza have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO2007/131727A (WO’727) in view of Kucza (US 2002/0056492).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANELL COMBS MORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-3pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached on 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/J.C.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1733 4/18/26
Prosecution Insights