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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/01/2026 has been entered.
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” and Baumann US 20050150642 A1.
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).
Aluminum Association , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a strip.
Baumann teach a strip with a final thickness (para 9, 27, 58) to manufacture a part from an aluminum alloy (figs 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a strip as taught by Baumann in the Aluminum Association , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for manufacturing a heat exchanger.
The recitation of “wherein the aluminum alloy is produced by: casting the aluminum alloy; homogenizing the aluminum alloy at a temperature range of from 530 C to 620 C to produce a homogenized ingot; hot rolling the homogenized ingot to a thickness of 2 mm to 10 mm to produce a hot rolled strip; cold rolling the hot rolled strip to a final thickness to produce a cold rolled strip; final annealing the cold rolled strip at a temperature range of from 300C to 450C” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” It is noted that of the several production steps, only the structure “a strip” is required which will naturally have “a final thickness”.
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” and Baumann US 20050150642 A1.
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 and Baumann US 20050150642 A1.
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 and Baumann US 20050150642 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 and Baumann US 20050150642 A1.
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 6/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fail to teach the newly amended scope regarding a strip with a final thickness. However, the scope of the scope of claim 1 has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on Baumann to teach the newly recited scope (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Chehab requires processing steps which are not compatible with other 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 other alloys and processing steps which are not compatible with other 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.
The applicant argues that Hisatomi teach away from using the Al alloy of claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hisatomi teach preferable compositions but does not teach minimums or maximums. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would see situations where a certain characteristics such as anti-corrosion may have a higher weighted importance as a higher strength and thus tradeoffs would be acceptable in various intended use applications.
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
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