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 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.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata et al. (JP-2001-050682A) (hereafter Kawabata) in view of Yue (CN-106956072A) and Crockett et al. (US 2008/0296351A1) (hereafter Crockett).
With respect to claim 10, Kawabata teaches a joining method of joining a main body (11) and a cover (13), the main body being a flat plate and made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy and including a passage (14) through which a medium is circulated, and the cover being made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy and configured to cover the passage of the main body (paragraphs 7 and 12 of the machine translation), the method comprising: a covering step of covering the main body (11) with the cover (13); and a diffusion bonding step of joining the main body and the cover by diffusion bonding (paragraphs 12-13, 16, 18-20 and 32 of machine translation) under a condition in which a joining temperature is 500° C. or higher and 640° C. or lower (paragraphs 16, 18, and 32 of machine translation).
With respect to claim 10, Kabawata does not teach a joining surface pressure is 0.7 MPa or higher and 3 MPa or lower; or wherein each of a joining surface of the main body and a joining surface of the cover has a flatness of 0.2 mm or less.
However, Yue teaches diffusion bonding a plurality of aluminum components at a temperature of exactly 500°C to 640°C (claim 9) at a pressure of 2MPa to 15MPa (claim 1; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the pressure of Yue for the pressure of Kawabata in order to suppress deformation and/or distortion of the components while still forming a diffusion bond of satisfactory strength.
While, Crockett teaches processing bonding surfaces to a flatness of 0.2 mm or less for the diffusion bonding of metal sheets (paragraphs 31, 82, and 114).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the surfaces of Kawabata in the manner described by Crockett in order to promote contact of the faying surfaces and form a high-quality diffusion bond between the components.
With respect to claim 11, Crockett teaches wherein each of a joining surface of the main body and a joining surface of the cover has a surface roughness greater than zero and equal to or less than Ra 0.4 (paragraphs 21, 23, 24, 29, 78,100, and 114).
With respect to claim 12, it is the examiner’s position that the collective process of Kawabata, Yue, and Crockett will intrinsically exhibit a joined interface between the main body and the cover that has a tensile strength that is greater than the tensile strength of the main body and the cover because the collective process sets forth all of the claimed processing steps. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata, Yue, and Crockett as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Arita et al. (US 4,214,925) (hereafter Arita).
With respect to claim 13, Kawabata, Yue, and Crockett do not teach wherein the main body and the cover are made of aluminum alloy No. 6061, and the joined interface between the main body and the cover has a tensile strength of greater than 125 MPa.
However, Arita teaches forming aluminum heat exchangers from alloy 6061 (column 2, lines 4-10; and column 4, line 35-column 6, line 14). 6061 aluminum intrinsically has a tensile strength greater than 125 MPa. Thus, two parts of 6061 aluminum that are ultimately diffusion bonded by the collective process would intrinsically have joining surfaces with a tensile strength of 125 MPa or greater. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the 6061 aluminum of Arita for the 6000 series aluminum of Kawabata in order to form a heat exchanger with the desired mechanical and chemical properties. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata et al. (JP-2001-050682A) (hereafter Kawabata) in view of Crockett.
With respect to claim 14, Kawabata teaches a joined body comprising: a main body (11) made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy and including a passage (14) through which a medium is circulated (figures; and paragraphs 7, 12, 18-20 and 32 of machine translation); and a cover (13) made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy and configured to cover the passage of the main body, and the main body and the cover are diffusion-joined (paragraphs 7, 12, 18-20 and 32 of machine translation).
With respect to claim 14, Kawabata does not teach wherein each of a joining surface of the main body and a joining surface of the cover has a flatness of 0.2 mm or less
However, Crockett teaches processing bonding surfaces to a flatness of 0.2 mm or less for the diffusion bonding of metal sheets (paragraphs 31, 82, and 114).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the surfaces of Kawabata in the manner described by Crockett in order to promote contact of the faying surfaces and form a high-quality diffusion bond between the components.
With respect to claim 15, since Kawabata and Crockett collectively teach a process of diffusion bonding an aluminum article having a main body and a cover with a flatness of 0.2 mm or less, it is the examiner’s position that the collective article of Kawabata and Crockett will intrinsically exhibit a joined interface between the main body and the cover that has a tensile strength that is greater than the tensile strength of the main body and the cover. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata and Crockett as applied to claims 14-15 above, and further in view of Arita et al. (US 4,214,925) (hereafter Arita).
With respect to claim 16, Kawabata and Crockett do not teach wherein the main body and the cover are made of aluminum alloy No. 6061, and the joined interface between the main body and the cover has a tensile strength of greater than 125 MPa.
However, Arita teaches forming aluminum heat exchangers from alloy 6061 (column 2, lines 4-10; and column 4, line 35-column 6, line 14). 6061 aluminum intrinsically has a tensile strength greater than 125 MPa. Thus, two parts of 6061 aluminum that are ultimately diffusion bonded by the collective process would intrinsically have joining surfaces with a tensile strength of 125 MPa or greater. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the 6061 aluminum of Arita for the 6000 series aluminum of Kawabata in order to form a heat exchanger with the desired mechanical and chemical properties. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection set forth in the non-final Office action of 9/26/25, the applicant argues that the flatness described in the instant application is stated only as "each of a joining surface of the main body and a joining surface of the cover has a flatness of 0.2 or less" with no specific provision indicating it pertains to "any particular area of the joining surfaces." Therefore, it is generally understood to refer to the flatness of the entire joining surface, and it is obvious to those skilled in the art from the specification that it refers to the overall flatness.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the original disclosure is devoid of any citation that the claimed flatness pertains to the entire joining surface and/or overall flatness of the main body and cover. Accordingly, in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation the examiner considers the claimed flatness to be directed to any measurable area of the joining surfaces, and is not limited to the entire joining surface as alleged by the applicant. Thus, the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn by the examiner and the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied for purposes of examination.
The applicant also argues that Yue specifies "an aluminum foil thickness of 0.01 mm to 0.2 mm," indicating an extremely thin and flexible material. Therefore, it is easily deformed under pressure, making the "flatness" prior to bonding not a significant technical issue in the first place. Since Yue pertains to aluminum foil, it lacks technical relevance to the present invention or Kawabata directed to plate bonding, and there is no motivation to combine Kawabata and Yue.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Yue is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Yue is clearly in the field of the inventor’s endeavor which is the diffusion bonding of aluminum. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims as a specific thickness is not required. In any event, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the temperature and pressure ranges Yue to be compatible with the aluminum workpieces of Kabawata. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide evidence of unexpected results for the claimed temperature and pressure ranges.
The applicant further argues that claim 13 of Crockett reads that "the flatness of sheets to be bonded should be 0.001 inches overall and +0.0005 inches over any 4 square inch area." However, Crockett pertains to stainless steel, which fundamentally differs from aluminum in properties affecting bonding, such as hardness, melting point, and oxide film. Therefore, it cannot be simply combined with Kawabata. Therefore, there is no motivation to refer to Crockett for bonding aluminum or aluminum alloy plates, as in the present application or Kawabata. Furthermore, while Claim 13 of Crockett recites, "the flatness of sheets to be bonded should be 0.001 inches overall and ±0.0005 inches over any 4 square inch area", the present invention enables high-quality bonding with a flatness one order of magnitude larger (flatness of 0.2 mm or less). That is, while Crockett relates to a flatness one order of magnitude smaller than the present invention ("the flatness of sheets to be bonded should be 0.001 inches overall"), it would not lead to the millimeter-level flatness achieved by the claimed invention. Moreover, the applicant argues that the effect of the claimed invention (reliably joining the main body and cover while suppressing quality degradation due to joining) is not achieved merely by setting flatness to 0.2 mm or less, nor is it achieved merely by setting the joining conditions as described in the claims. It is achieved by performing diffusion bonding under the joining conditions recited in the claims, with flatness of 0.2 mm or less, specifically on aluminum or aluminum alloy under the joining conditions recited in the claims, with flatness maintained at 0.2 mm or less during diffusion bonding. Please refer to the previously filed declarations. None of the prior art references disclose this combination.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Crockett is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Crockett is clearly in the field of the inventor’s endeavor which is the diffusion bonding of oxidizable metals.
In addition, paragraph [0031] states that “to obtain good diffusion bonding, the flatness of sheets to be bonded should be 0.001 inches overall and, +-.0.0005 inches over any 4 square inch area” which is equal to a flatness of 0.0005 inches (0.0127 millimeters) when the lower tolerance is achieved. (emphasis added by the examiner).
While, paragraph [0082] states that “to obtain good diffusion bonding, the flatness of sheets to be bonded should be 0.001 inches overall and. +-.0.0005 over any 2 inch area or greater in a restrained condition” which is equal to a flatness of 0.0005 inches (0.0127 millimeters) when the lower tolerance is achieved. (emphasis added by the examiner).
Finally, paragraph [0114] states that “the sheets may be processed by a fine grinding process 126 for obtaining a flatness of 0.0005 inches, parallelism of 0.0005 inches, for uniaxial diffusion bonding.” 0.0005 inches is equal to 0.0127 millimeters, which is less than the claimed 2mm or less.
Clearly one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the flatness of Crockett in the process of Kabawata in order to increase contact at the faying surfaces, aid in load transfer between the workpieces, and obtain good diffusion bonding. There is nothing unexpected here regarding the flatness.
Additionally, the applicant argues that the rejection's conclusions appear to be hindsight, based on individual references comprised of different materials, making the references not logically combinable to establish a prima facie conclusion of obviousness.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Finally, the applicant mentions that joining 6063 aluminum under the bonding conditions (temperature and pressure) recited in the claimed invention causes it to compress by 0.2mm. Therefore, if the flatness is 0.2mm or less, the surfaces will contact each other across the entire diffusion bonding interface, enabling a strong bond.
The applicant’s argument is not commensurate is scope with the claims because the claims do not required 6063 aluminum.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights