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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, 8 and 11 are pending wherein claims 1, 4, 8 and 11 are under examination, claims 2-3, 6-7 and 9-10 are canceled and claim 5 is withdrawn from consideration.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwao et al. (JP 2020-010088).
In regard to claim 1, Iwao et al. (JP ‘088) discloses forming an aluminum alloy clad material (brazing sheet) used to join portions of a heat exchanger at a single joint (layer) having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (pages 4-5 and 9-10 of Translation).
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Iwao et al. (JP ‘088)
(mass percent)
Overlap
Si
1.5 – 5
2 – 5
2 – 5
Fe
0.01 – 2
0.1 – 1
0.1 – 1
Mn
0.50 – 2.00 `
0.1 – 1
0.5 – 1
Zn
0 – 6
2 – 5
2 – 5
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of silicon, iron, manganese and zinc for the aluminum based alloys disclosed by Iwao et al. (JP ‘088) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to have selected the claimed amounts of silicon, iron, manganese and zinc from the amounts disclosed by Iwao et al. (JP ‘088) because Iwao et al. (JP ‘088) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “wherein in a heating test in which a temperature is raised from 300°C to 400°C at an average temperature rising rate of 60°C/min or less and held at 600 ± 3°C for 5±3 minutes, average grain size in a plane parallel to a rolled surface after the heating test is 370 µm or more, and an average number of grains in a sheet thickness direction after the heating test is 1.5 pieces or more” in claim 1, Iwao et al. (JP ’088) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, these properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 4, Iwao et al. (JP ‘088) discloses wherein the thickness of the aluminum brazing material would be 45 micrometers or more, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (page 7 of translation). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (WO 2013/111884).
In regard to claim 1, Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses a single layer aluminum alloy material for heat exchanger fins having a heating and joining function having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (abstract and claims)
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Fujita et al. (WO ‘884)
(mass percent)
Overlap
Si
1.5 – 5
1 – 5
1.5 – 5
Fe
0.01 – 2
0.1 – 2
0.1 – 2
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Fujita et al. (WO ‘884)
(mass percent)
Overlap
Mn
0.50 – 2.00 `
0.1 – 2
0.5 – 2
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of silicon, iron, and manganese for the aluminum based alloys disclosed by Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to have selected the claimed amounts of silicon, iron, and manganese from the amounts disclosed by Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) because Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Still regarding claim 1 and in regard to claim 4, Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses rolling to a rolled thickness of 0.09 mm, which would be considered a sheet (First embodiment).
With respect to the recitation “wherein in a heating test in which a temperature is raised from 300°C to 400°C at an average temperature rising rate of 60°C/min or less and held at 600 ± 3°C for 5±3 minutes, average grain size in a plane parallel to a rolled surface after the heating test is 370 µm or more, and an average number of grains in a sheet thickness direction after the heating test is 1.5 pieces or more” in claim 1, Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses a substantially similar composition made by casting (First embodiment). Therefore, the claimed property/observance would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 8, Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses a single layer aluminum alloy material for heat exchanger fins having a heating and joining function of the heat exchanger tube and fin wherein the fin would have compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (abstract, page 6 of Translation, page 11 of Translation and claims).
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Fujita et al. (WO ‘884)
(mass percent)
Overlap
Si
1.5 – 5
1 – 5
1.5 – 5
Fe
0.01 – 2
0.1 – 2
0.1 – 2
Mn
0.50 – 2.00 `
0.1 – 2
0.5 – 2
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of silicon, iron, and manganese for the aluminum based alloys disclosed by Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to have selected the claimed amounts of silicon, iron, and manganese from the amounts disclosed by Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) because Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “and average grain size in a plane parallel to a rolled surface of the fin is 370 µm or more, and an average number of grains in a sheet thickness direction is 1.5 pieces or more” in claim 8, Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses wherein the structure has a major axis of 3 micrometers or more in the crystal grains and 10 to 3000 pieces/mm2, which overlap the ranges of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 11, Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses a single layer aluminum alloy material for heat exchanger fins having a heating and joining function of the heat exchanger tube and heat exchanger fin (abstract, page 6 of Translation, page 11 of Translation , Figures and claims).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant primarily argues that Iwao et al. (JP ‘088) discloses an aluminum alloy clad material for a heat exchanger including an Al-Mn core material and Al-Si-Zn brazing material bonded thereto; Iwao et al. (JP ‘088) consistently describes a clad material composed of different layers, namely a core material and a brazing material; [0049] of the specification clearly explains that “In contrast, when a brazing sheet on which a brazing filler metal has been clad is used and joined to an aluminum alloy opposing material by brazing heating, a fillet is formed in a joint and a eutectic structure appears and a joining structure is different than that of the case in which the single-layer brazing sheet is used and joined to an aluminum alloy opposing material by brazing heating is formed. The Applicant further argues that in Iwao et al. (JP ‘088), the sheet thickness direction includes a core material and a brazing material each having different compositions.
In response, the Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “having a function of heat joining in a single layer” and this recitation would be an intended use of the aluminum alloy sheet. MPEP 2111.02 II. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the limitations are to the sheet and not to the single layer with the sheet and other bound material. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claims utilize “comprising” transitional language, which would leave the claims open to additional, unrecited elements/materials. MPEP 2111.03.
Second, the Applicant primarily argues that the manufacturing methods of Iwao et al. (JP ‘088) and Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) cannot be considered identical to those of the present invention. Iwao et al. (JP ‘088) discloses manufacturing by semi-continuous casting (DC casting) and Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses semi-continuous casting (DC casting) whereas the instant invention discloses continuous casting and rolling and there are differences in the grains.
In response, the Examiner notes that the only claim that recites a feature pertaining to the grains that that would not be as a result of a testing condition or an optional condition would be claim which indicates that “an average grain size in a plane parallel to a rolled surface of the fin is 370 µm or more, and an average number of grains in a sheet thickness direction is 1.5 pieces or more”. Fujita et al. (WO ‘884) discloses wherein the structure has a major axis of 3 micrometers or more in the crystal grains and 10 to 3000 pieces/mm2 and these features would overlap the ranges of the instant invention. The claims under examination are drawn to products and not processes and while such processing may make something that is structurally distinct, Applicant has not demonstrated such processing to have these structurally distinct features.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759