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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s 6/3/2025.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation “a heat exchange medium” (line 9) renders the claim indefinite as the claims previously set forth “a refrigerant” (line 32). It is unclear if the heat exchange medium refers to the heat exchange medium.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Poteet et al. (US 2021/0025662) (hereafter Poteet 2021) and Poteet et al. (US 2019/0352781) (hereafter Poteet 2019), and further in view of Sakurai et al. (US 2015/0027671).
Regarding claim 1, Poteet 2021 (Figure 1B) discloses a heat exchanger (Paragraph 12), comprising:
A metal substrate (110) (Paragraph 15), and
A coating layer (120, 130, 140) comprising a rare earth conversion coating layer (120) (Paragraph 16) and a top coating layer (140),
Where the rare earth conversion coating layer is arranged to cover at least part of a surface of the metal substrate (Figure 1B), the rare earth conversion coating layer comprises a rare earth element-containing compound (Paragraph 16), and at least part of the top coating layer is further away from the metal substrate than the rare earth conversion coating layer (Figure 1B).
While Poteet 2021 is pertinent to heat exchanger coatings (Paragraph 12), Poteet 2021 does not explicitly teach or disclose that the metal substrate has a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium.
Poteet 2019 (Figures 4-5 and Paragraphs 40-42: These embodiments include overlapping disclosures) teaches a heat exchanger (Paragraph 31), comprising: a metal substrate (100) (Paragraph 32) having a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium (Paragraph 31: Defined by heat exchanger passages). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the heat exchanger as disclosed by Poteet 2021 with a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium as taught by Poteet 2019 to improve heat exchanger heat transfer capability by providing passages configured to facilitate heat transfer between fluids.
Further, Poteet 2021 does not explicitly teach or disclose that the top coating layer is hydrophobic.
Poteet 2019 (Figures 4-5 and Paragraphs 40-42: These embodiments include overlapping disclosures) teaches a heat exchanger (Paragraph 31), comprising: a metal substrate (100) (Paragraph 32) having a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium (Paragraph 31: Defined by heat exchanger passages), and a coating layer (210) comprising a conversion coating layer (212) (Paragraph 40) and a hydrophobic top coating layer (224) (Paragraph 42), where the conversion coating layer is arranged to cover at least part of a surface of the metal substrate (Figures 4-5), and at least part of the hydrophobic top coating layer is further away from the metal substrate than the rare earth conversion coating layer (Figures 4-5). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the top coating layer as disclosed by Poteet 2021 in the form of a hydrophobic top coating layer as taught by Poteet 2019 to improve heat exchanger resistance to corrosion by providing the heat exchanger with surfaces that are configured to repel water (Paragraph 41 of Poteet 2019).
Poteet 2021 further discloses that the top coating layer is arranged to cover at least part of a surface of the rare earth conversion coating layer (Figure 1B), and the top coating layer is connected to the rare earth conversion coating layer (Figure 1B). While Poteet 2021 discloses that the top coating layer is connected to the rare earth conversion coating layer by atomic layer deposition (Paragraph 29), the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 does not explicitly teach or disclose covalent bonding between the hydrophobic coating layer and the rare earth conversion coating layer.
Sakurai et al. teaches a heat exchanger (Paragraph 31), comprising: a metal substrate (11) (Paragraph 38), and a coating layer comprising a conversion coating layer (13) (Paragraph 38) and a hydrophobic top coating layer (12) (Paragraph 32), where the hydrophobic top coating layer is covalently bonded to the metal substrate by the conversion coating layer (Paragraphs 34 and 43, see also Figure 5: Paragraphs 34 and 43: Layer 21 covalently bonds layers 11 and 12). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the hydrophobic coating layer and the rare earth conversion coating layer as disclosed the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 to be covalently bonded to each other as taught by Sakurai et al. to improve heat exchanger service life and resistance to corrosion by configuring heat exchanger layers to be strongly bonded to each other.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above, where Poteet 2021 discloses that the rare earth conversion coating layer is connected to the metal substrate (Figure 1B), and the hydrophobic coating layer is exposed to an environment (Figure 1B and Paragraph 30). However, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 does not explicitly teach or disclose covalent bonding between the rare earth conversion coating layer and the metal substrate.
Sakurai et al. teaches a heat exchanger (Paragraph 31), comprising: a metal substrate (11) (Paragraph 38), and a coating layer comprising a conversion coating layer (13) (Paragraph 38) and a hydrophobic top coating layer (12) (Paragraph 32), where the hydrophobic top coating layer is covalently bonded to the metal substrate by the conversion coating layer (Paragraphs 34 and 43). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the rare earth conversion coating layer and the metal substrate as disclosed by the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 to be covalently bonded to each other as taught by Sakurai et al. to improve heat exchanger service life and resistance to corrosion by configuring heat exchanger layers to be strongly bonded to each other.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above, where Poteet 2021 further discloses that the rare earth element of the rare earth element-containing compound comprises at least one of lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium and europium (Paragraph 16: Lanthanum, La, for example).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above, where Poteet 2021 further discloses that the coating layer further comprises at least one functional coating layer (130), where at least part of the functional coating layer is sandwiched between the rare earth conversion coating layer (i.e. 120) and the top coating layer (i.e. 140) (Figure 1B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poteet et al. (US 2021/0025662) (hereafter Poteet 2021), Poteet et al. (US 2019/0352781) (hereafter Poteet 2019), and Sakurai et al. (US 2015/0027671), and further in view of Kutchko et al. (US 2019/0338150).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above. While Poteet 2021 discloses coatings comprising silica (Paragraph 30 of Poteet 2021), and while also Poteet 2021 discloses coating comprising silica (Paragraph 33 of Poteet 2019), the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 does not explicitly teach or disclose the top coating as comprising hydrophobically modified silica.
Kutchko et al. teaches surface coating compositions, comprising at least: a substrate (Paragraph 19), and a coating layer comprising a conversion coating layer (Paragraph 25) and a hydrophobic top coating layer (Paragraphs 20-21), where the hydrophobic top coating layer hydrophobically modified silica (Paragraph 20), and where a static contact angle between the hydrophobic top coating layer and water is greater than 150 degrees (Paragraph 21). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the hydrophobic top coating layer as disclosed by the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 to comprise hydrophobically modified silica taught by Kutchko et al. to improve heat exchanger resistance to corrosion by providing the heat exchanger with surfaces that are more effectively configured to repel water.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poteet et al. (US 2021/0025662) (hereafter Poteet 2021), Poteet et al. (US 2019/0352781) (hereafter Poteet 2019), and Sakurai et al. (US 2015/0027671), and further in view of O’Keefe et al. (US 2014/0371059).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above. While Poteet 2021 discloses the coating layer (120, 130, 140) comprising a rare earth conversion coating layer (120) (Paragraph 16: The rare earth conversion coating layer Cerium includes), Poteet 2021 does not explicitly teach or disclose the rare earth conversion coating layer as comprising cerium oxide and cerium hydroxide.
O’Keefe et al. teaches surface coating concepts pertinent to applying corrosion resistant layers (Paragraph 2), comprising at least: a metal substrate (Paragraph 7), and a coating layer comprising a rare earth conversion coating layer (Paragraph 7: Conversion coating comprising cerium), and a top coating layer (Paragraph 7: Nano-coating), where the rare earth conversion coating layer as comprising cerium oxide and cerium hydroxide (Paragraph 7: One or more of cerium oxide, cerium hydroxide, etc.). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the rare earth conversion coating layer as disclosed by Poteet 2021 from cerium compounds as taught by O’Keefe et al. to improve heat exchanger service life and resistance to corrosion by configuring heat exchanger layers from materials having self-healing behaviors (Paragraph 35 of O’Keefe et al.).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Poteet et al. (US 2021/0025662) (hereafter Poteet 2021), Poteet et al. (US 2019/0352781) (hereafter Poteet 2019), and Sakurai et al. (US 2015/0027671), and further in view of Jaworowski et al. (US 2016/0014929).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above. While Poteet 2021 is pertinent to heat exchanger coatings (Paragraph 12), Poteet 2021 does not explicitly teach or disclose a particular heat exchanger structure.
Jaworowski et al. teaches a heat exchanger (20), comprising: a metal substrate (410) having a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium (Paragraph 17: Defined by heat exchanger passages) and a coating layer (420), where the metal substrate comprises a header (212, 220), a fin (224), and a heat exchange tube (218), where the heat exchange tube is fixed to the header (Figure 2), where the fin is fixed to the heat exchange tube (Figure 2), where an inner cavity of the heat exchange tube is in communication with an inner cavity of the header (Figure 2), and where the coating layer is arranged to cover at least part of a surface of at least one of the header, the fin, and the heat exchange tube (Paragraph 28: The coating layer is applied to one or more parts of the heat exchanger). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the heat exchanger as disclosed by Poteet 2021 with a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium as taught by Jaworowski et al. to improve heat exchanger heat transfer capability by providing passages configured to facilitate heat transfer between fluids.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above. While Poteet 2021 is pertinent to heat exchanger coatings (Paragraph 12), Poteet 2021 does not explicitly teach or disclose a particular heat exchanger structure.
Jaworowski et al. teaches a heat exchanger (20), comprising: a metal substrate (410) having a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium (Paragraph 17: Defined by heat exchanger passages) and a coating layer (420), where the metal substrate comprises two headers (212, 220), a plurality of heat exchanger tubes (218), and a plurality of fins (224),
where each one the plurality of heat exchange tubes is fixed to the two headers (Figure 2 and Paragraph 14), and each one of the plurality of fins are fixed to adjacent two of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (Figure 2 and Paragraph 15) and an inner cavity of each one of the plurality of heat exchange tubes is in communication with an inner cavity of each one of the two headers (Figure 2 and Paragraph 14),
where the coating layer is arranged to cover at least part of surfaces of at least one of the two headers, the plurality of heat exchange tubes or the plurality of fins (Figure 4 and Paragraph 28),
where the plurality of the heat exchange tubes are arranged pararalleledly between the two headers along a length direction of the two headers (Figure 2), where each one of the plurality of heat exchange tubes comprises a plurality of heat exchange channels extending along a length direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (Figure 2 and Paragraph 14), where the inner cavity of each one of the plurality of heat exchange tubes comprises the plurality of the heat exchange channels (Paragraph 14), where each one of the plurality of heat exchange channels is in communication with the inner cavity of each one of the two headers (Figure 2), where each one of the plurality of fins is corrugated along the length direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (Figure 2), where each one of the plurality of fins has crests and troughs (Figure 2), and where each one of the plurality of fins is connected with the adjacent two of the plurality of heat exchange tubes at the crests and troughs (Figure 2: See 226). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the heat exchanger as disclosed by Poteet 2021 with a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium as taught by Jaworowski et al. to improve heat exchanger heat transfer capability by providing passages configured to facilitate heat transfer between fluids.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Poteet et al. (US 2021/0025662) (hereafter Poteet 2021), Poteet et al. (US 2019/0352781) (hereafter Poteet 2019), Sakurai et al. (US 2015/0027671), and Jaworowski et al. (US 2016/0014929), and further in view of Minami et al. (US 2009/0008068).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above. However, Poteet 2021 does not explicitly teach or disclose the metal substrate as having surface roughness.
Minami et al. teaches heat exchanger bonding techniques, comprising: a tube (2a) that is adhesively bonded to a fin (Paragraphs 20-21), where the tube has a first surface (i.e. a surface of the tube that is adhesively bonded to the fin) (Paragraphs 20-21), where the first surface of the tube has been roughened so as to have an arithmetic mean surface roughness of not less than 0.7 um and not more than 100 um (Paragraph 129: The first surface has a surface roughness less than 10 um). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure metal substrate as disclosed by Poteet 2021 with a surface roughness as taught by Minami et al. to improve heat exchanger service life by minimizing an occurrence of bonding defects between heat exchanger layers (Paragraph 129 of Minami et al.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poteet et al. (US 2021/0025662) (hereafter Poteet 2021), Poteet et al. (US 2019/0352781) (hereafter Poteet 2019), and Sakurai et al. (US 2015/0027671), and further in view of Bannai et al. (US 2013/0034743).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above. However, Poteet 2021 does not explicitly teach or disclose weight percentages of the conversion coating layer or the top coating layer.
Bannai et al. teaches a heat exchanger (Paragraph 10), comprising: a metal substrate (1) (Paragraph 11), and a coating layer comprising a conversion coating layer (2) (Paragraph 11) and a top coating layer (3) (Paragraph 11), where a weight per unit area of the conversion coating layer ranges from 0.75 g/m2 to 1.2 g/m2 (Paragraph 11), and where a weight per unit area of the top coating layer ranges from 4 g/m2 and 10 g/m2 (Paragraph 11). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the coating layers as disclosed by Poteet 2021 with weight per unit areas as taught by Bannai et al. to reduce heat exchanger manufacturing costs while providing effective corrosion resistance and sufficient coating layer adhesion by utilizing a minimum coating layer weight (Paragraph 32 of Bannai et al.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaworowski et al. (US 2016/0014929), and further in view of Poteet et al. (US 2021/0025662) (hereafter Poteet 2021), Poteet et al. (US 2019/0352781) (hereafter Poteet 2019), and Sakurai et al. (US 2015/0027671).
Regarding claim 20, Jaworowski et al. discloses a thermal management system, comprising: a compressor (10), a first heat exchanger (20), a throttling device (30), and a second heat exchanger (40), where -when a refrigerant flows in the thermal management system- the refrigerant flows into the first heat exchanger through the compressor (Figure 1), and then flows into the throttling device after exchanging heat in the first heat exchanger (Figure 1), and then flows into the second heat exchanger (Figure 1), and then flows into the compressor after exchanging heat in the second heat exchanger (Figure 1). While Jaworowski et al. discloses that at least one of the first heat exchange and the second heat exchanger is the heat exchanger comprises a metal substrate (410) having a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium (Paragraph 17: Defined by heat exchanger passages) and a coating layer (420), Jaworowski et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose a coating layer comprising a rare earth conversion coating layer and a top coating layer.
Poteet 2021 (Figure 1B) teaches a heat exchanger (Paragraph 12), comprising: a metal substrate (110) (Paragraph 15), and a coating layer (120, 130, 140) comprising a rare earth conversion coating layer (120) (Paragraph 16) and a top coating layer (140), where the rare earth conversion coating layer is arranged to cover at least part of a surface of the metal substrate (Figure 1B), the rare earth conversion coating layer comprises a rare earth element-containing compound (Paragraph 16), and at least part of the top coating layer is further away from the metal substrate than the rare earth conversion coating layer (Figure 1B). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the coating layer as disclosed by Jaworowski et al. in the form of a rare earth conversion coating layer and a top coating layer as taught by Poteet 2021 to improve heat exchanger service life and resistance to corrosion by providing the heat exchanger with layers that are configured to prevent damage to heat exchanger components.
Further, while Jaworowski et al. as modified by Poteet 2021 disclose a coating layer comprising a rare earth conversion coating layer and a top coating layer, Jaworowski et al. as modified by Poteet 2021 does not explicitly teach or disclose that the top coating layer is hydrophobic.
Poteet 2019 (Figures 4-5 and Paragraphs 40-42: These embodiments include overlapping disclosures) teaches a heat exchanger (Paragraph 31), comprising: a metal substrate (100) (Paragraph 32) having a fluid channel for circulating a heat exchange medium (Paragraph 31: Defined by heat exchanger passages), and a coating layer (210) comprising a conversion coating layer (212) (Paragraph 40) and a hydrophobic top coating layer (224) (Paragraph 42), where the conversion coating layer is arranged to cover at least part of a surface of the metal substrate (Figures 4-5), and at least part of the hydrophobic top coating layer is further away from the metal substrate than the rare earth conversion coating layer (Figures 4-5). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the top coating layer as disclosed by Jaworowski et al. as modified by Poteet 2019 in the form of a hydrophobic top coating layer as taught by Poteet 2021 to improve heat exchanger resistance to corrosion by providing the heat exchanger with surfaces that are configured to repel water (Paragraph 41 of Poteet 2021).
While the combination of Jaworowski, Poteet 2021, and Poteet 2019 further discloses that the top coating layer is arranged to cover at least part of a surface of the rare earth conversion coating layer (Figure 1B of Poteet 2021), and the top coating layer is connected to the rare earth conversion coating layer (Figure 1B), and while Poteet 2021 discloses that the top coating layer is connected to the rare earth conversion coating layer by atomic layer deposition (Paragraph 29), the combination of Jaworowski, Poteet 2021, and Poteet 2019 does not explicitly teach or disclose covalent bonding between the hydrophobic coating layer and the rare earth conversion coating layer.
Sakurai et al. teaches a heat exchanger (Paragraph 31), comprising: a metal substrate (11) (Paragraph 38), and a coating layer comprising a conversion coating layer (13) (Paragraph 38) and a hydrophobic top coating layer (12) (Paragraph 32), where the hydrophobic top coating layer is covalently bonded to the metal substrate by the conversion coating layer (Paragraphs 34 and 43, see also Figure 5: Paragraphs 34 and 43: Layer 21 covalently bonds layers 11 and 12). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the hydrophobic coating layer and the rare earth conversion coating layer as disclosed by the combination of Jaworowski, Poteet 2021, and Poteet 2019 to be covalently bonded to each other as taught by Sakurai et al. to improve heat exchanger service life and resistance to corrosion by configuring heat exchanger layers to be strongly bonded to each other.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments on page 8, lines 5-8:
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the 35 USC 112 rejections of record, but appears to introduce new indefiniteness.
Regarding the arguments on page 8, lines 9-20:
Applicant alleges that Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 do not teach or disclose covalent bonding at all. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Upon further review of the cited art and knowledge available to one having ordinary skill in the art, it is noted that Poteet 2021 discloses at least that and a top coating layer (e.g. 130) is applied to the rare earth conversion coating layer (120) by atomic layer deposition (Paragraph 29), where atomic layer deposition is known in the art to form covalent bonds (Paragraph 46 of US 2018/0198006).
Regarding the arguments on page 8, line 21 to page 10, line 10:
Applicant alleges that Sakurai does not teach or disclose the claimed invention in that Sakurai does not teach or disclose (i) covalent bonding between the hydrophobic coating layer and the rare earth conversion coating layer or (ii) covalent bonding between the rare earth conversion coating layer and the metal substrate. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Poteet 2021 discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention including at least: a metal substrate (110) and a coating layer (120, 130, 140) comprising a rare earth conversion coating layer (120) (Paragraph 16) and a top coating layer (140), where the rare earth conversion coating layer is connected to the metal substrate (Figure 1B), and where the top coating layer is connected to the rare earth conversion coating layer (Figure 1B). However, Poteet 2021 is silent to whether or not the aforementioned connections define covalent bonds.
It is asserted that Sakurai remedies the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 in that Sakurai teaches the concept of providing a covalent bond between at least two connected layers in order to form a strong connection between those at least two connected layers (Paragraphs 34 and 43, see also Figure 5: Paragraphs 34 and 43: Layer 21 covalently bonds layers 11 and 12), where the claims do not appear to recite any specific materials for the hydrophobic coating layer, the rare earth conversion coating layer, and the metal substrate that differ from the materials of the cited art. It is also noted that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that chemical bonds falls under three categories (ionic, covalent, and metallic) and that the type of chemical bond is dependent on the materials being bonded together.
Applicant also alleges that Sakurai does not teach or disclose the claimed invention in that Sakurai discloses a metal substrate 11 and a surface layer connected by a binder layer 21 via a dehydration reaction. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., types of reactions and chemical compositions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant case, the claims only appear to recite a type of chemical bond between the hydrophobic coating layer, the rare earth conversion coating layer, and the metal substrate without reciting any specific materials of the layers or any specific types of reactions and resulting compositions of the chemical bonds connecting the layers. It is noted that Sakurai (Figure 5) discloses a coating layer (12), a conversion coating layer (21), and a metal substrate (11), where layer 21 covalently bonds layers 11 and 12.
Regarding the arguments on page 10, lines 2-6:
Applicant alleges that Sakurai does not teach or disclose improving a connection between surface layer 12 and binder layer 21. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. In the instant case, Sakurai clearly discloses that covalent bonds form a strong connection between those at least two connected layers (Paragraphs 34 and 43).
Applicant also alleges that Sakurai does not teach or disclose a covalent bond between surface layer 12 and binder layer 21. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above (see “Regarding the arguments on page 8, line 21 to page 10, line 10”).
Regarding the arguments on page 10, lines 11-27:
Applicant alleges that Poteet 2021 teaches away from claim 9. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is unclear as claim 9 does not recite any limitations directed to material composition as alleged. Rather, claim 9 only appears to further recite relative positioning of the claimed layers, which is clearly disclosed by Poteet 2021, and where it was previously identified that the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1).
Applicant also alleges that Bannai teaches away from claim 10. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is unclear as claim 10 does not recite any limitations directed to material composition as alleged. Rather, claim 10 only appears to further recite weight per unit area of the claimed layers, which is clearly disclosed by Bannai, and where it was previously identified that the combination of Poteet 2021 and Poteet 2019 discloses a heat exchanger having a hydrophobic top coating layer as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding the arguments on page 11, lines 1-4:
Rejoinder of the withdrawn claims will be considered should an allowable claim be identified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2018/0198006 discloses a method for applying coating layers.
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 JASON N THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 8:30 am -5:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/JASON N THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights