ETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluminum Association “International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys” and Qian et al. “Effects of Mn addition and related Mn-containing dispersoids on the hot deformation behavior of 6082 aluminum alloys” and Najat et al. “Sealing of Anodized Multiphase Aluminum Alloys with Cr(+III)/Zr(+IV) Salts: Characterization and Corrosion Behavior”.
Re claim 1, Aluminum Association teach an aluminium alloy sheet material for use in a heat exchanger having a composition (alloy 3008, page 27-28), in wt.%, comprising: Si up to 0.7% , Fe up to 0.7% ,Mg up to 0.30% , Cu up to 0.10%, , Zn up to 0.50%,Ti up to 0.2%,balance aluminium and inevitable impurities, wherein Cr and Zr are each present at a minimum of 0.03% (alloy 3008, page 27).
Aluminum Association teach Mn 1.55% -1.8% (noting over lapping ranges), and Cr + Zr from 0.08% to 0.25% (noting over lapping ranges) to provide a range of desired material properties (alloy 3008, page 27) in an Manganese aluminum alloy (page 32, noting the teachings of Qian et al. to yielded significantly increased high-temperature flow stresses, compared to that of the base alloy without dispersoids see abstract with Mn; and Najat et al. with Zr + Cr on corrosion resistance, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include overlapping ranges as taught by Aluminum Association , Qian et al. and Najat et al. as it would have been prima facie obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range . A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See: MPEP 2144.05(I), 2144.08.
Aluminum Association, as modified, teach and wherein the aluminum alloy has a post-braze yield strength of greater than 40 MPa (noting the functional limitation is capable of being met by the instant combination of materials; additionally noting that an aluminum alloy with the composition as taught by the prior art in claim 1, would naturally have a post-braze yield strength of greater than 40 MPa).
Re claim 4, Aluminum Association teach comprising up to 0.45 wt. % Si (alloy 3008, page 27).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluminum Association “International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys”, as modified by Qian et al. and Najat et al., further in view of Belan et al. “The effect of iron content on fatigue lifetime of AlZn10Si8Mg cast alloy”.
Re claim 5, Aluminum Association, as modified, fail to explicitly teach up to 0.5 wt. % Fe.
Belan et al. teach comprising up to 0.5 wt. % Fe (page 8 conclusions fourth bullet point) to provide an iron wt % on the lower range or below .5 %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include up to 0.5 wt. % Fe as taught by Belan et al. in the Aluminum Association , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to increase the fatigue lifetime in the short and medium life-time regime.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluminum Association “International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys” , as modified by Qian et al. and Najat et al., further in view of Hisatomi et al. US 2010/0263768 Al .
Re claim 6, Aluminum Association, as modified, fail to explicitly teach construction details.
Hisatomi et al. teach an aluminium alloy core layer made from the aluminium alloy defined in claim 1 (in the instant combination using the alloy of claim 1 as the core layer) and provided on one or both faces with an aluminium brazing layer to manufacture a heat exchanger (para 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include construction details as taught by Hisatomi et al. in the Aluminum Association, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat exchange without corrosion in the final product.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluminum Association “International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys” , as modified by Qian et al. and Najat et al., further in view of Hisatomi et al. US 2010/0263768 Al and JACOBY US 20190077119 A1.
Re claim 7, Aluminum Association , as modified, fail to explicitly teach construction details.
JACOBY teach wherein the aluminium brazing layer comprises a 4XXX-series aluminium alloy brazing layer to manufacture a heat exchanger (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include construction details as taught by JACOBY in the Aluminum Association , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat exchanger with a known material.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluminum Association “International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys” , as modified by Qian et al. and Najat et al., further in view of CHEHAB US 20210170532 A1.
Re claim 6, Aluminum Association , as modified, fail to explicitly teach construction details.
CHEHAB teach an aluminium alloy core layer made from the aluminium alloy defined in claim 1 (in the instant combination using the alloy of claim 1 as the core layer) and provided on one or both faces with an aluminium brazing layer to manufacture a heat exchanger (para 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include construction details as taught by CHEHAB in the Aluminum Association, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat exchange without corrosion in the final product.
Re claim 7, Aluminum Association , as modified, fail to explicitly teach construction details.
CHEHAB teach wherein the aluminium brazing layer comprises a 4XXX-series aluminium alloy brazing layer to manufacture a heat exchanger (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include construction details as taught by CHEHAB in the Aluminum Association , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat exchanger with a known material.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluminum Association “International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys” , as modified by Qian et al. and Najat et al., further in view of Bermig ET AL. New Copper-free Header Material HA 3903-R, as cited on the IDS.
Re claim 8, Aluminum Association, as modified , fail to explicitly teach temper.
Bermig ET AL. teach wherein the aluminium alloy sheet material is provided in an O-temper or H22- temper for manufacture (page 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include temper as taught by Bermig ET AL. in the Aluminum Association , as modified , invention in order to advantageously allow for optimum brazing importance without compromise in properties compared to standard or long life header alloys.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include overlapping ranges as taught by Aluminum Association , Qian et al. and Najat et al. as it would have been prima facie obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range . A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See: MPEP 2144.05(I), 2144.08.
The applicant argues that there is some apparent post brazing weakness in Al3xxx alloys and certain percentages cause metal softening in AL3xxx alloys. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant has only provided a statement of record, with no evidence, no citations, and no reference to any part of the prior art of record which show post brazing weakness in Al3xxx alloys and certain percentages cause metal softening in AL3xxx alloys.
I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The primary reference teach overlapping ranges of the materials which would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to teach claimed range, and additionally obvious to try the ranges given the material benefit outlined by the secondary references.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights