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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/13/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 9/13/2025, is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-18 are currently pending, claims 12-14 are withdrawn.
While previous 112(b) rejections have been overcome by the amendments, a new 112(b) rejection is made in view of the amended claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a core layer comprising an aluminum alloy of the type AA6xxxx,” whereas the claim previously required an aluminum alloy of the type “AA6xxx.” The instant specification does not provide support for an “AA6xxxx alloy,” and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the previously limitation (AA6xxx) refers to a known/standardized 6000-series aluminum alloy and there is no convention or standard for a 60,000-series aluminum alloys. Thus, it is unclear if the amended limitation is a typographical error meant to recite “AA6xxx” or instead, intended to recite a different alloy altogether. Claims 2-3, 5-10, and 15-17 are indefinite based on their dependency. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as drawn to an AA6xxx type alloy.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “An aluminum composite material for the manufacture of high strength, soldered components”(emphasis added) and thus is drawn to the aluminum composite material, not the high strength, soldered components for which the material is useful for manufacturing.
Claim 1 then recites “after soldering of the component the aluminum composite material is at least in some areas directly or indirectly materially-bonded with at least one solder layer comprising an aluminum solder alloy.”(emphasis added) Thus, rather than claiming an aluminum composite material comprising, for example, an aluminum alloy in materially-bonded contact with at least one solder layer, the claim is drawn to an aluminum material “for the manufacture of soldered components” wherein after a hypothetical, intended step of “after soldering,” it would be in contact with a solder layer.
Thus, the recited structure comprising at least one solder layer is drawn to a contingent/conditional limitation based on an intended use of the claimed aluminum material. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04. The limitations drawn to “after soldering” and the composition of the solder alloy are therefore, provided patentable weight only to the extent that the claimed aluminum composite material is capable of achieving the claimed properties (drawn to an increase in yield strength) after they contingent process of soldering and artificial aging. As a result, as long as the prior art teaches an aluminum composite material having the claimed core layer and at least one cladding layer, and is capable of the claimed properties, it is deemed to meet the instant claim.
Claim 18, reciting the same or substantially the same limitations, is interpreted in the same manner as claim 1.
Additionally, the limitation drawn to the intended processing of the aluminum material reciting “the aluminum alloy of the core layer is configured to provide, after soldering at at least 595°C…” also represents a product-by-process limitation. According to MPEP § 2113, "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
Thus, the claim does not require any such soldering step, but due to the functional limitation describing the increase of yield strength after soldering but before an artificial ageing step, does require an aluminum material capable of an increase in yield strength resulting from an ageing heat treatment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schoelin et al. (SE 514234)(cited on IDS, dated 9/24/2024)(machine translation provided)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 18, Schoelin teaches a clad material for the production of high strength brazed/soldered heat exchangers, the material comprising a core material composed of an AA6xxx aluminum alloy, wherein the core material is clad with a AA4045 aluminum braze/solder alloy. Thus, Schoelin teaches an aluminum material for the manufacture of high strength soldered components, the aluminum material comprising an aluminum alloy of the type AA6xxx, wherein after soldering of the component, the aluminum material is at least in some areas directly or indirectly in materially-bonded contact with at least one solder alloy comprising an aluminum solder alloy. (p. 1-4 of translation).
Schoelin further teaches that clad solder alloy has a lower melting point than the core aluminum alloy, and requires a soldering process at a temperature of at least 600°C (see abstract). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the core aluminum alloy material necessarily has a melting/liquidus temperature higher than 600°C and in order to achieve its stated purpose, would require a solidus temperature that is also above 600°C. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that AA6xxx alloys, based on their standardized compositional ranges, and in particular the particular example “A” of Schoelin, necessarily exhibits a solidus temperature of at least 595°C.
Finally, the limitation drawn to the intended processing of the aluminum material reciting “the aluminum material after soldering at at least 595°C and cooling at an average cooling rate of 0.5C/s…” is drawn to a contingent/conditional limitation that also represents a product-by-process limitation. (see claim interpretation section above). The claim does not require performing the recited process, only that, if the material were to be processed under such conditions, it would obtain an increase in yield strength as claimed.
Schoelin teaches that the core aluminum alloy material exhibits an increase in yield strength resulting from artificial ageing heat treatment. (p. 4-6 of translation). For example, the reference teaches examples of a AA6xxx type aluminum alloy material having a yield strength Rp.02 of 56 MPa (1 day at room temperature after soldering and before aging) and increases up to 188 MPa after an artificial ageing heat treatment at 200°C for 1 hour and additional examples with yield strength up to 216 MPa. (Table 3). While it is noted that the processing parameters are not identical, the reference teaches aging at a lower temperature than instantly claimed, wherein high temperatures are shown to further improve yield strength (see Schoelin, Table 3, aging at 225°C for 1 hour achieving 200 MPa rather than 188 MPa) and further, the increase of Shoelin (188-56=132 MPa) far exceeds the required “at least 90 MPa. Thus, Schoelin teaches an aluminum alloy material achieving an increase in yield strength from after a soldering step to after an artificial ageing step, under similar conditions to the contingent process in the claims, of 132 MPa or more, including examples up to 160 MPa increase, exceeding the claimed range of claim 1 and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that aluminum composite material of Schoelin to be capable of the claimed yield strength increase under the claimed conditions.
It is further noted that the starting yield strength measurement of 56 MPa occurs after 1 day of natural (room temperature) ageing, which would be expected to result in at least some degree of yield strength increase as compared to the state immediately after soldering (see Table 3, demonstrating the increase in yield strength due to increased natural aging time) and therefore, the difference in yield strength demonstrated by Schoelin would be expected to exceed the calculations above. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily expect that the aluminum alloy material of Schoelin, if processed under the conditional process limitations of claim 1, would necessarily result in the same or better yield strength increase. See MPEP 2112.01.
"Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Thus, the burden is shifted to the applicant to prove that the product of the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics attributed to the claimed product. See In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."); MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the prima facie case can only be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoelin et al. (SE 514234)(cited on IDS, dated 9/24/2024)(machine translation provided)(previously cited in view of Ren (US 2013/0302642)(previously cited).
With respect to Claims 1-2, Schoelin teaches a clad material for the production of high strength brazed/soldered heat exchangers, the material comprising a core material composed of an AA6xxx aluminum alloy, wherein the core material is clad with a AA4045 aluminum braze/solder alloy. Thus, Schoelin teaches an aluminum composite material for the manufacture of high strength soldered components, the aluminum material comprising a core layer comprising an aluminum alloy of the type AA6xxx, wherein after soldering of the component, the aluminum material is at least in some areas directly or indirectly in materially-bonded contact with at least one solder alloy comprising an aluminum solder alloy. (p. 1-4 of translation).
Specifically, Schoelin teaches wherein the aluminum solder alloy, with which the aluminum material is directly in materially-bonded contact, is a AA4045 type alloy having a composition in weight%, as follows (Table 1).
Claim 1, solder alloy
Schoelin, clad solder alloy
Si
7.0-13.0
9.59
Fe
≤ 0.8
0.16
Cu
≤ 2.5
< 0.01
Mn
≤ 0.1
< 0.01
Mg
≤ 0.1
< 0.01
Cr
≤ 0.1
-
Zn
≤ 2.5
0.02
Ti
≤ 0.3
< 0.01
Zr
≤ 0.1
-
Al
Balance
Balance
Compositional ranges including zero are interpreted as optional elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Schoelin further teaches that clad solder alloy has a lower melting point than the core aluminum alloy, and requires a soldering process at a temperature of at least 600°C (see abstract). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the core aluminum alloy material necessarily has a melting/liquidus temperature higher than 600°C and in order to achieve its stated purpose, would require a solidus temperature that is also above 600°C. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that AA6xxx alloys, based on their standardized compositional ranges, necessarily result in an alloy having a solidus temperature of at least 595°C. Moreover, Schoelin specifically teaches tailoring the core aluminum alloy material of AA6xxx type to maintain a high solidus temperature. (see p. 4 of translation). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize the solidus temperature of the core aluminum alloy material, in particular, having solidus and liquidus temperatures exceeding 600°C, meeting the instantly claimed range.
Schoelin teaches that the core aluminum alloy material exhibits an increase in yield strength resulting from artificial ageing heat treatment. (p. 4-6 of translation). For example, the reference teaches examples of a AA6xxx type aluminum alloy material having a yield strength Rp.02 of 56 MPa (1 day at room temperature after soldering and before aging) and increases up to 188 MPa after an artificial ageing heat treatment at 200°C for 1 hour and additional examples with yield strength up to 216 MPa. (Table 3). While it is noted that the processing parameters are not identical, the reference teaches aging at a lower temperature than instantly claimed, wherein high temperatures are shown to further improve yield strength (see Schoelin, Table 3, aging at 225°C for 1 hour achieving 200 MPa rather than 188 MPa) and further, the increase of Shoelin (188-56=132 MPa) far exceeds the required “at least 90 MPa. Thus, Schoelin teaches an aluminum alloy material achieving an increase in yield strength from after a soldering step to after an artificial ageing step, under similar conditions to the contingent process in the claims, of 132 MPa or more, including examples up to 160 MPa increase, exceeding the claimed range of claim 1 and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that aluminum composite material of Schoelin to be capable of the claimed yield strength increase under the claimed conditions.
It is further noted that the starting yield strength measurement of 56 MPa occurs after 1 day of natural (room temperature) ageing, which would be expected to result in at least some degree of yield strength increase as compared to the state immediately after soldering (see Table 3, demonstrating the increase in yield strength due to increased natural aging time) and therefore, the difference in yield strength demonstrated by Schoelin would be expected to exceed the calculations above. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily expect that the aluminum alloy material of Schoelin, if processed under the conditional process limitations of claim 1, would necessarily result in the same or better yield strength increase. See MPEP 2112.01.
Additionally, Schoelin teaches tailoring the processing parameters, including ageing treatment temperature and time, resulting in improved yield strength. (see Table 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an aluminum alloy capable of achieving a desired yield strength under predetermined processing parameters, from those disclosed by Schoelin, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Finally, with respect to the “aluminum composite material” comprising “at least one cladding layer comprising an aluminum cladding alloy, the at least one cladding layer being provided on one side or both sides of the core layer,” Schoelin teaches a composite material comprising a core layer comprising an AA6xxx type aluminum alloy material and is clad on one side with an aluminum alloy solder layer (see above), but is silent as to a cladding layer having a composition as in claim 1 and 9.
Ren teaches a multi-layer aluminum composite material for the manufacture of heat exchanger components comprising a core aluminum alloy material of the AA6xxx type, wherein the aluminum material may be in direct or indirect, materially-bonded, contact with one or more additional layers, including a solder layer of an AA3xxx or AA4xxx type and a clad liner layer of AA3xxx or AA7xxx alloy. (para. 3-18, 24-31, 46-52). Ren teaches the benefit of clad liner layer(s) in combination with outer solder layer(s) (see, e.g, para. 57) and teaches wherein the cladding layer may be 5-20% of the total thickness of the entire composite material. (para. 47). Thus, Ren teaches an aluminum material comprising an AA6xxx type alloy forming a composite with a solder alloy layer on one side and a liner layer (i.e. cladding layer) on the opposite side. (see also Fig. 2).
In particular, Ren teaches a liner layer (cladding layer) composition having an AA3xxx or AA7xxx composition with additional Zn, and teaches a specific, in weight%, as follows (para. 7, 58):
Claim 1, cladding layer
Ren, cladding Ex. 7xxx
Si
≤ 1.0
0.05
Fe
≤ 2.0
0.21
Cu
≤ 0.3
0.05
Mn
≤ 0.3
0.05
Mg
≤ 0.1
0.03
Cr
≤ 0.1
-
Zn
≤ 2.0
0.94
Ti
≤ 0.3
-
Zr
≤ 0.2
-
Al
Balance
Balance
Compositional ranges including zero are interpreted as optional elements. Thus, Ren teaches a specific example falling within each of the required compositional ranges.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aluminum composite component of Schoelin to substitute one cladding layer for another, or to add an additional cladding layer to the opposite side (thus, forming a solder layer on one side/surface and a cladding layer on a different side/surface), or alternatively, to provide a cladding lining layer in contact with one or both sides of the core layer, wherein the solder layer is formed on the cladding lining liner, the cladding layer comprising a AA7xxx composition of Ren, in order to obtain an aluminum composite material soldering, with a predictable result of success. The substitution of one known cladding/solder layer for another would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a cladding layer thickness of 5-20% of the composite material, as taught by Ren, in order to obtain a sufficiently thick cladding layer to offer protection to the core. (Ren, para. 60). Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 3, Schoelin teaches an AA6xxx type alloy, with a composition, in weight%, as follows (abstract; Table 1):
Claim 3
Schoelin
Schoelin, Ex. A
Si
0.5-0.9
0.5-1.0
0.61
Fe
≤ 0.5
-
0.22
Cu
≤ 0.5
0.2-0.5
0.26
Mn
≤ 0.5
-
0.01
Mg
0.4-0.8
0.3-0.5
0.44
Cr
≤ 0.3
-
-
Zn
≤ 0.3
-
0.09
Ti
≤ 0.3
0.05-3.0
0.16
Zr
≤ 0.1
-
-
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
Compositional ranges including zero are interpreted as optional elements. Therefore, Schoelin teaches an aluminum alloy composition with ranges overlapping or falling within each of the instantly required ranges and a specific example falling within the instantly required ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 5-6, Schoelin in view of Ren teach wherein the aluminum material may comprise an aluminum composite material comprising a solder alloy layer on one side and cladding layer on the other side or alternatively, a cladding liner in direct contact with one or two sides of the core layer and an outer solder layer formed on one or two sides of the cladding liner layer. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claim 7, Schoelin teaches wherein the solder layer is 10% of thickness of the aluminum composite material. (Table 1). Moreover, the claim is drawn to an intended use of the aluminum alloy (see rejection of claims 5-6 above and claim interpretation section), as Schoelin teaches the aluminum alloy of claim 1, it necessarily meets the limitations of the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 8, Schoelin in view of Ren teach a cladding layer having a Mg content of, for example, 0.03 wt%, meeting the claimed range. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claim 9, Schoelin in view of Ren teach a cladding layer having a Fe content of, for example, 0.21 wt%, meeting the claimed range. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claims 10 and 17, Ren teaches a corrosion potential between the core layer and the cladding layer of 30 to 200 mV (para. 8, 17, 29) and teaches specific examples wherein the potential difference pre-soldering to post-soldering increases by more than 10 mV as well examples where the difference decreases by more than 10 mV pre to post-soldering. (Table, para. 59). Thus, Ren is deemed to teach wherein the corrosion potential and the difference pre to post soldering may be controlled by selecting core and cladding layer compositions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a corrosion potential and/or corrosion potential difference from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aluminum material of Schoelin in view of Ren to select core and cladding layers such that a corrosion potential difference of 10 mV or more exists from the pre-soldering to post-soldering states, as taught by Ren, in order to provide enhanced corrosion protection to the core. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 15-16, Schoelin teaches wherein the aluminum alloy material is used to manufacture a soldered component comprising a heat exchanger. (p. 2-3 of translation).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoelin et al. (SE 514234)(previously cited)(with respect to claim 18) and Shoelin in view of Ren (US 2013/0302642)(previously cited)(with respect to claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-17), further in view of Ren (US 2020/0368852)(hereafter, “Ren II”)(previously cited).
In the alternative to the above rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-18, Schoelin in view of Ren (claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-17) and Schoelin (claim 18) respectively teach an aluminum alloy material comprising a core layer of a composite component, wherein the aluminum alloy material would necessarily be expected to have a solidus temperature exceeding 595°C (see rejections above, incorporated here by reference); however, the reference(s) do not specifically disclose the solidus temperature of the material.
Ren II teaches a multi-layer composite material comprising an aluminum alloy core layer, for example, an AA6xxx alloy, and a composite braze liner comprising a low melting point aluminum alloy and a layer of 4xxx aluminum alloy. (para. 5-8, 36, 56). Ren II teaches that the core alloy (e.g. AA6xxx) has a solidus temperature of 590° C or greater, including several specific examples exceeding 595° C. (para. 22-23, Table 3).
Thus, Schoelin and Ren II are both drawn to composite materials comprising an AA6xxx core aluminum alloy material (corresponding to the claimed “aluminum material”) that may be in contact with a braze/solder layer. Ren II evidences the fact that such AA6xxx-type alloy compositions, wherein the solidus temperature is an intrinsic property to the composition, are known to have solidus temperatures overlapping or exceeding the claimed temperature.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aluminum material of Schoelin and Schoelin in view of Ren to select a AA6xxx core aluminum alloy composition having a solidus temperature of 595°C or greater, as taught by Ren II, in order to obtain a composite material having a core alloy with a suitably higher solidus temperature than the braze/solder layer to prevent unwanted melting and/or structural change to the core alloy during a soldering or brazing process. Moreover, the substitution of one AA6xxx type aluminum alloy used for a core material of composite braze/solder material for another AA6xxx type aluminum alloy for the same purpose would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping compositional and alloy solidus temperature ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the strengthening demonstrated by Shoelin, with respect to an example at 200°C for 1 hour, is stronger due to the treatment lasting longer than the claimed 45 minutes. Applicant argues that a treatment at 177°C for 90 minutes is more comparable. Applicant also argues that Shoelin discloses a different cooling rate than instantly claimed. Based on these factors, Applicant concludes that Shoelin would not be capable of achieving the claimed increase in yield strength under the claimed conditions. These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Schoelin teaches examples of a AA6xxx type aluminum alloy material having a yield strength Rp.02 of 56 MPa (1 day at room temperature after soldering and before aging) and increases up to 188 MPa after an artificial ageing heat treatment at 200°C for 1 hour and additional examples with yield strength up to 216 MPa. (Table 3). While it is noted that the processing parameters are not identical, the reference teaches aging at a lower temperature than instantly claimed, wherein high temperatures are shown to further improve yield strength (see Schoelin, Table 3, aging at 225°C for 1 hour achieving 200 MPa rather than 188 MPa) and further, the increase of Shoelin (188-56=132 MPa) far exceeds the required “at least 90 MPa. Therefore, even though Shoelin teaches a longer treatment time at 200°C, the reference also shows that at 205°C, a greater yield strength would be expected for the same amount of heat treatment time. Accordingly, at 205°C, Shoelin would be expected to demonstrate a yield strength increase, for a one hour treatment, greater than 132 MPa. It follows, that even if treated for the shorter time of 45 minutes, the aluminum composite of Shoelin (and it follows Shoelin in view of Ren) would provide a yield strength increase of 90 MPa or more. See also MPEP 2112.
Applicant fails to provide any evidence that Shoelin, if heated at 205°C for 45 minutes, would not necessarily result in the claimed yield strength increase and therefore, fails to rebut the rejections of record. Additionally, the example treated at 177°C is conducted at an even lower temperature and longer time than the 200°C example, and is therefore, not considered a closer example. Applicant also fails to rebut the 103 rejection with respect to optimization of the yield strength, as Shoelin clearly demonstrates that yield strength is a result effective variable that may be adjusted by controlling heat treatment parameters including both temperature and time. See also MPEP 2144.
Applicant argues with respect to the combination of Shoelin in view of Ren, that the combination does not remedy deficiencies of Shoelin with respect to yield strength properties. This argument is not found persuasive as Shoelin teaches an increase in yield strength meeting the instant claims, as detailed above.
Applicant further makes arguments drawn to Mg diffusion under hypothetical conditions that are not claimed and argues that the present claims provide improved corrosion resistance due to the presence of the cladding layer whereas Shoelin achieves improved corrosion resistance due to the avoidance of impurities. (Remarks, pgs. 11-12). Finally, Applicant appears to argue that the cladding layer prevents Mg diffusion, and this is responsible for the core alloy to be capable of the claimed yield strength increase. These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., soldering in an inert atmosphere; preventing Mg diffusion from the core alloy) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Shoelin achieves yield strength increase and corrosion resistance by a different technique/structure, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As Shoelin teaches a core alloy capable of the claimed yield strength increase, the method or reason for such increase, is not relevant as it is not a required element of the recited product claim. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve corrosion resistance by the addition of a cladding liner layer, as taught by Ren.
Finally, Applicants remaining arguments drawn to Ren and Ren II restate above arguments and therefore, are not found persuasive for the same reasons detailed in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140193666 A1, drawn to a clad aluminum composite material wherein the material experiences an increase in yield strength after aging (see para. 91), but is silent as to the magnitude of such increase.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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 at 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 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735