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
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) 1, 2-7, 9, 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (2,908,072) in view of Matsushita et al. (2014/00224862).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a brazing joint formation system wherein the system comprises: a furnace including a heating compartment defining a single cavity (figure, column 45 lines 12-45).
Johnson discloses that after brazing, the component can be cooled in a non-oxidizing atmosphere and then removed (column 4 lines 28-45), but does not specifically disclose a cooling device disposed within said single cavity. However, Matsushita discloses a system comprising: a heating compartment 21 defining a single cavity; and a cooling device 23 disposed within said single cavity of said heating compartment, said cooling device operable to selectively extract heat from said base (figure 5, paragraph 0037-0039). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known cooling device as taught by Matsushita in order to allow for controlled cooling of the component to prevent any unwanted microstructure that could be detrimental to the joint.
The limitation “a component including a base comprising a base surface, a recess depending from said base surface into said base to an inner edge, and a braze material disposed within said recess and forming a cap above said base surface, wherein the braze material fills the recess from the cap to the inner edge, and wherein the cap has an exposed braze surface” is intended use and does not further limit the structure of the system/apparatus. Since the system/apparatus discloses the claimed structural features, it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art would be capable of being used for the intended use.
The limitations “the furnace operable to heat the single cavity to a braze temperature sufficient to melt at least a portion of the braze material when the component is received in the single cavity” and “to selectively extract heat from the base and control a formation of solidification defects of the braze material to occur primarily in the cap of the brazed joint rather than in the recess of the component” are functional and do not further limit the structure of the apparatus/system. Since the apparatus/system discloses the claimed structural features, it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art would be capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claim 2, Matsushita discloses that said furnace is a further operable to create a vacuum within said single cavity that is sufficient to remove at least some gas from said single cavity (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claims 3-7, 9, these claims are directed to the material worked upon and do not further limit the system/apparatus. Since the apparatus/system discloses the claimed structural features, it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art would be capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claims 34-36, the limitations regarding the temperature are process limitations and do not further limit the structure of the apparatus. With that being said, Johnson discloses a temperature of about 2050 F for brazing (column 4 lines 28-45), so Johnson is capable of heating within a range as claimed.
Regarding claim 37, the material worked upon (turbine blade) does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (2,908,072) in view of Matsushita et al. (2014/00224862) and Saxena et al. (2008/0006294).
Regarding claim 21, Johnson discloses brazing joint formation system; wherein the system comprises: a furnace including a heating compartment defining a single cavity, the furnace operable to reach a braze temperature sufficient to melt at least a portion of the braze material (figure, column 45 lines 12-45);
Johnson discloses that after brazing, the component can be cooled in a non-oxidizing atmosphere and then removed (column 4 lines 28-45), but does not specifically disclose a cooling device disposed within said single cavity. However, Matsushita discloses a system comprising: a heating compartment 21 defining a single cavity; and a cooling device 23 disposed within said single cavity of said heating compartment, said cooling device operable to selectively extract heat from said base (figure 5, paragraph 0037-0039). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a cooling device as taught by Matsushita in order to allow for controlled cooling of the component to prevent any unwanted microstructure that could be detrimental to the joint.
Matsushita does not specifically disclose that the cooling device directly contacts the base (workpiece). However, Saxena discloses a chamber used for heating and cooling components wherein the component 11 directly contacts the cooling device 38 (figure 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to place the component directly on the cooling device/plate to ensure that the device is properly cooled without having to worry about how a tray would alter the cooling time. Having a tray/obstacle in between the component and the cooling device will slow down cooling increasing production time and costs.
The limitation “for a component including a base having a base surface, a recess depending from the base surface into the base to an inner edge, a braze material disposed within the recess and forming a cap above the base surface, the braze material filling the recess from the cap to the inner edge, wherein the cap has an exposed braze surface and wherein the base includes a second base surface being opposite the base surface and closer to said inner edge of said recess than to said cap” is intended use and does not further limit the structure of the system/apparatus. Since the system/apparatus discloses the claimed structural features, it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art would be capable of being used for the intended use.
The limitations “said cooling device operable to selectively extract heat from the base when the component is received in the single cavity” and “when cooling said braze material and avoid a location of solidification defects of the braze material in the recess of the component” are functional and do not further limit the structure of the apparatus/system. Since the apparatus/system discloses the claimed structural features, it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art would be capable of performing the claimed functions.
Claim(s) 22, 28, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (2,908,072) in view of Matsushita et al. (2014/00224862) and Saxena et al. (2008/0006294) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ashburn (2002/0126729).
Regarding claim 22, Saxena states that the cooling plate 38 has the same function as a heat exchanger (paragraph 0023). Ashburn discloses that a cooling device during a brazing process comprises a heat exchanger (abstract, paragraph 0013, 0031). While Ashurn does disclose contacting the component, one could easily use a heat exchanger for the cooling plate of Saxena especially since Saxena states that the cooling plate functions as the same as a heat exchanger. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known cooling device for the heating process to achieve the desired cooling rate to ensure that the proper microstructure is achieved.
Regarding claim 28, this claim is directed to the material worked upon and do not further limit the system.
Regarding claim 31, the limitation is drawn to the material worked upon and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (2,908,072) in view of Matsushita et al. (2014/00224862) and Saxena et al. (2008/0006294) and Ashburn (2002/0126729) as applied to claims 21, 22 above, and further in view of Jones (2016/0238323).
Regarding claims 23-24, Ashburn does not disclose that the heat exchanger comprises a plate-fin heat exchanger, a plate heat exchanger, or a tube heat exchanger. However, Jones discloses a plate fin heat exchanger with graphite and embedding cooling channels connected to a cooling media (paragraph 0016-0018, 0059, 0122). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a heat exchanger as taught by Jones because Jones states that they are inexpensive and light weight (paragraph 0016).
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (2,908,072) in view of Matsushita et al. (2014/00224862) and Saxena et al. (2008/0006294) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ashburn (2002/0126729) and Nguyen (5,016,707).
Regarding claim 25, Matsushita does not disclose that the cooling device comprises an impingement manifold operable to direct a fluid into impingement with said location on said base. However, Ashburn discloses that a cooling device during a brazing process comprises a heat exchanger (abstract, paragraph 0013, 0031). Nguyen discloses a jet impingement manifold heat exchanger (abstract). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a well-known and readily available heat exchanger such has a one with an impingement manifold that avoids adverse effects of axial conduction and reduces overall weight, volume and costs of the heat exchanger (column 1 lines 6-12). The heat exchanger of Nguyen is inexpensive and small, so it wouldn’t take up a lot of space.
Regarding claim 26, Nguyen discloses that the impingement manifold comprises jet impingement connected to cooling, so it is the Examiner’s position that there are jet nozzles present.
Regarding claim 27, Ashburn states that the cooling fluid comprises at least one gas selected from the group consisting of argon, helium, hydrogen, and nitrogen (paragraph 0031).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (2,908,072) in view of Matsushita et al. (2014/00224862) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saxena et al. (2008/0006294), Ashburn (2002/0126729), and Jones (2016/0238323).
Regarding claim 32, Matsushita does not disclose that the cooling device comprises a graphite plate with embedded cooling channels. However, Saxena states a chamber with heating and cooling of a component wherein the cooling device 38 has the same function as a heat exchanger (paragraph 0023). Ashburn discloses that a cooling device during a brazing process can comprise a heat exchanger (abstract, paragraph 0013, 0031). Ashburn does not disclose that the heat exchanger comprises graphite plate with embedded cooling channels. However, Jones discloses a plate fin heat exchanger with graphite and embedding cooling channels connected to a cooling media (paragraph 0016-0018, 0059, 0122). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a heat exchanger as taught by Jones because Jones states that they are inexpensive and light weight (paragraph 0016).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (2014/00224862) Saxena et al. (2008/0006294), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ashburn (2002/0126729), and Nguyen (5,016,707).
Regarding claim 33, Matsushita does not disclose that the cooling device comprises an impingement manifold operable to direct a fluid into impingement with said location on said base. However, Ashburn discloses that a cooling device during a brazing process comprises a heat exchanger (abstract, paragraph 0013, 0031). Nguyen discloses a jet impingement manifold heat exchanger (abstract). Since Nguyen discloses that the impingement manifold comprises jet impingement connected to cooling, so it is the Examiner’s position that there are jet nozzles present. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a well-known and readily available heat exchanger such has a one with an impingement manifold that avoids adverse effects of axial conduction and reduces overall weight, volume and costs of the heat exchanger (column 1 lines 6-12). The heat exchanger of Nguyen is inexpensive and small, so it wouldn’t take up a lot of space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the office cannot ignore clearly recited function in the claim language when the function reflects a novel aspect of the invention. The Applicant argues that a functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The functional limitations do not further limit the structure of the claimed system/apparatus. The system is a furnace with a cooling plate. Since the prior art discloses the claimed structure, there is nothing that precludes the apparatus from being used for the claimed function. The Examiner did not ignore the function; however; the there is nothing precluding the prior arts system/apparatus from being used for the Applicant’s function and material worked upon. Therefore, the claim limitations are met. The Applicant has not provided any reasoning or support as to why the prior art would not be capable of being used for the claimed function.
The Applicant argues that the claimed invention concerns a particular component that is prone to particular problems in the formation of the brazed joint with a system that is configured to beneficially provide a solution to the problem.
The material worked upon does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. The structures a vacuum brazing furnace chamber and a cooling plate. Since the prior art teaches the structure as currently claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art would be capable of performing the function on the component. The Applicant has not provided any support or evidence showing that the prior art would not be capable of performing the claimed function for the particular component.
The Applicant argues that Johnson discloses a different component from claim 1 and that Johnson does not disclose a cooling plate. The Applicant argues that that the problem as taught in the current invention is taught by Johnson. The Applicant also argues that Matsushita teaches a soldering method with a cooling plate. The Applicant argues that these temperatures are less than 450C. The Applicant argues that Matsushita teaches away from brazing a joint.
The Examiner disagrees. It is stated that Johnson teaches a brazing furnace. Johnson also discloses cooling in a controlled environment. Johnson does not teach a cooling plate. Matsushita discloses a cooling plate in a soldering furnace; however; Matsushita is a secondary reference and was not used for the soldering aspect, but for the cooling plate in a bonding furnace. Matsushita clearly shows that it is known in the art to provide a cooling plate in a heating furnace for cooling a component after it is bonded. While Matsushita may be heating a semiconductor component at a lower temperature, Matsushita does not teach or disclose that the furnace itself cannot be used at higher temperatures. Again, the Examiner would like to clarify that the invention is drawn to an apparatus. The apparatus requires a brazing vacuum furnace and a cooling plate within the furnace. The Applicant has not provided any support or evidence to show that the prior art would not be capable of performing the claimed function and the material worked upon.
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 ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights