DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 15, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim 1, 2, 4 and 6, in the reply filed on March 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 18, 2025.
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, 2, 4 and 6 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 (lines 7-8) recites “wherein the brazing seam is a concave-shaped brazing seam and is horizontally arrange”.
Claim 1 fails to recite any limitations which allow one to properly what structural features of the first and second base metal plates and the gap therebetween define the brazing seam such that it is “horizontally arranged”; it is unclear as to what extension or dimension of the brazing seam is “horizontally arranged”. It is unclear as to whether such “horizontal arrangement” of the brazing seam is defined by the longitudinal extension of the brazing seam in a “horizontal direction”, or defined by the cross-sectional extension of the brazing seam which extends between the opposing edges of the gap between opposing horizontal planar surfaces of the vertically-overlapped first and second base metal plates in a “horizontal direction”. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claim. Claims 2, 4 and 6 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Examiner notes that claim 1 fails to recite any limitations which define the opposing horizontal planar surfaces of the vertically-overlapped first and second base metal plates, nor any limitations defining the cross-sectional extension of the brazing seam between the opposing edges of the gap between the first and second base metal plates in a horizontal direction.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmquist et al. (US 7,875,827) in view of Wakisaka et al. (US 8,492,675), Nowak et al. (US 2011/0095000) and Wittebrood et al. (US 7,056,597).
As to claim 1 as best understood, Palmquist et al. disclose a brazing joint for promoting solder rheology and gas overflow, comprising:
a first base metal 10, a second base metal 12, and a brazing seam 24 located between the first base metal and the second base metal, wherein the brazing seam is formed by filling a solder in a gap formed by a welding surface of the first base metal and a welding surface of the second base metal and melting the solder to connect the first base metal and the second base metal, wherein the brazing seam is horizontally arranged (brazing seam 24 longitudinally extends in a horizontal direction; Figure 3);
the gap defines a first distance and a second distance, the first distance is located at an edge of the gap, the second distance is located at an opposing edge of the gap or inside the gap, the first distance is greater than the second distance, and a curved surface is formed between location of the first distance and location of the second distance for transition,
wherein the first base metal comprises a first welding surface, and the second base metal comprises a second welding surface,
wherein the solder is a copper-based solder, or a silver-based solder,
wherein the solder comprises tin, which controls the solder to form the brazing seam along the gap during a brazing process (Figures 1-3; C3 L42-47).
Palmquist et al. fail to disclose a brazing joint wherein the brazing seam is a concave-shaped brazing seam.
Wakisaka et al. teach a brazing joint wherein a brazing seam 4 is a concave-shaped brazing seam; the concave-shape providing for increased joint strength of the brazing seam between first and second plates 1,2 (Figures 1-3; C2 L1-4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brazing joint disclosed by Palmquist et al. wherein to comprise a concave-shaped brazing seam, as taught by Wakisaka et al., in order to provide for increased joint strength of the brazing seam between the first and second plates.
Palmquist et al. fail to disclose a brazing joint wherein the first welding surface and/or the second welding surface are provided with strip-shaped textures, and the strip-shaped textures extend from the location of the first distance to the location of the second distance.
Nowak et al. teach a brazing joint wherein a first welding surface 114 and/or a second welding surface 114 are provided with strip-shaped textures 116, and the strip-shaped textures extend from the location of a first distance to the location of a second distance; the strip-shaped textures providing for reduced porosity of the brazing seam between first and second plates 102,104, providing for increased joint strength of the brazing seam (Figures 3-8; paragraph [0022]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brazing joint disclosed by Palmquist et al. wherein the first and second welding surfaces comprise strip-shaped textures, as taught by Nowak et al., in order to provide for reduced porosity of the brazing seam between the first and second plates, providing for increased joint strength of the brazing seam.
Palmquist et al. fail to disclose a brazing joint wherein the solder comprise 0.5%-3.5% tin. Palmquist et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific percentage of tin.
Wittebrood et al. teach a brazing joint wherein the solder comprises 0.3%-7% tin; such percentage of tin within solder providing for corrosion-resistance of the brazing seam between first and second plates (C5 L58-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brazing joint disclosed by Palmquist et al. wherein the solder comprises 0.5%-3.5% tin, within the range as taught by Wittebrood et al., in order to provide for corrosion-resistance of the brazing seam between the first and second plates.
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific material of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the brazing joint disclosed by Palmquist et al. wherein the solder comprises 0.5%-3.5% tin, as Palmquist et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific percentage of tin, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
As to claim 2, Palmquist et al. disclose a brazing joint wherein the curved surface is provided on the first base metal 10 and/or the second base metal 12 (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 4, Palmquist et al. disclose a brazing joint wherein a material of the first base metal 10 is copper or steel; and a material of the second base metal 12 is copper or steel (Figures 1-3; C3 L18-26).
As to claim 6, Palmquist et al. disclose a brazing joint wherein the solder 24 comprises silicon (Figures 1-3; C6 L10-12).
Palmquist et al. fail to explicitly disclose a brazing joint wherein the solder comprises 0.2%-1.5% silicon. Palmquist et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific percentage of silicon.
Wakisaka et al. teach a brazing joint wherein the solder comprises 0.25%-1.0% silicon; such percentage of silicon within solder providing for increased tensile strength and peel strength of the brazing seam between first and second plates (Figures 16-17). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brazing joint disclosed by Palmquist et al. wherein the solder comprises 0.25%-1.0% silicon, as taught by Wakisaka et al., in order to provide for increased tensile strength and peel strength of the brazing seam between the first and second plates.
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific material of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the brazing joint disclosed by Palmquist et al. wherein the solder comprises 0.2%-1.5% silicon, as Palmquist et al. do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific percentage of silicon, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, Attorney argues that:
Palmquist et al. fail to disclose a brazing joint wherein the brazing seam is horizontally arranged.
Examiner disagrees. As to claim 1 as best understood, Palmquist et al. disclose a brazing joint wherein the brazing seam is horizontally arranged (brazing seam 24 longitudinally extends in a horizontal direction; Figure 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST).
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571)270-5788. 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.
02/13/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619