DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are pending and currently under review.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain(s) pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coughlan et al. (US 2015/0168088).
Regarding claim 1, Coughlan et al. discloses an amorphous brazing foil having an atomic composition of Ni60Cr25B2P10Si3, which falls within the claimed range as calculated by the examiner [abstract, 0031]. Coughlan et al. does not expressly teach controlling B/Cr as claimed; however, the aforementioned composition of Coughlan et al. naturally results in a B/Cr value of 0.08, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Coughlan et al. discloses the foil of claim 1 (see previous). Coughlan et al. teaches that the foil has a thickness of 25 to 51 micrometers and fits between two sheets having widths of 1.9 cm and 2.5 cm, respectively [0018, 0031]. The examiner notes that these ranges fall within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 3, Coughlan et al. discloses the foil of claim 1 (see previous). Coughlan et al. does not disclose any Mo inclusion (ie. zero percent), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Coughlan et al. discloses the foil of claim 1 (see previous). Coughlan et al. further discloses that the foil contains less than 10 percent crystallinity, which translates to an amorphous phase of at least 90 percent which falls within the claimed range [0014].
Regarding claim 5, Coughlan et al. discloses the foil of claim 1 (see previous). Coughlan et al. further discloses a liquidus temperature of 970 degrees C, which falls within the claimed range [0031].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann et al. (US 2016/0207130).
Regarding claim 1, Hartmann et al. discloses an amorphous brazing foil embodiment 22 having a composition NiCr22B2.5P13Si3 in atomic percent, which falls within the claimed composition when converted to weight percent as determined by the examiner and seen in table 1 below [abstract, 0096].
Hartmann et al. also alternatively discloses a broad compositional range as also seen in table 1 below, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0014]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Hartmann et al. does not specify a B/Cr ratio as claimed; however, the claimed B/Cr ratio merely further limits the B and Cr ranges which is substantially close to the embodiment 22 of Hartmann et al. and overlapping with and obvious over the broad ranges of Hartmann et al. Regarding said closeness, the examiner notes that the B/Cr ratio of embodiment 22 of Hartmann et al. is approximately 0.11, which is substantially close to the claimed B/Cr upper limit of 0.1 such that similar properties would have been expected despite a mere difference of only 0.01. This is evidenced by applicant’s own data which shows that B/Cr ranges of up to 0.17 achieve good corrosion properties of maximum corrosion depth of up to 0.013 mm [table 1 instant spec.].
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Hartmann et al. (alloy 22)
Hartmann et al. (broad, at.%)
Cr
19 – 30
22.2
2 – 30
P
4 – 9
7.8
2 – 20
Si
0.2 – 4
1.6
0 – 14
B
0.3 – 1
0.5
0.5 – 14
Ni & impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
B/Cr
0 – 0.17
0.11
overlaps
Regarding claim 2, Hartmann et al. discloses the foil of claim 1 (see previous). Hartmann et al. further teaches a foil thickness of 15 to 75 micrometers and a width of 30 to 150 mm, which fall within the claimed ranges [0058].
Regarding claim 3, Hartmann et al. discloses the foil of claim 1 (see previous). Hartmann et al. further teaches inclusion of Mo in an amount of up to 3 atomic percent, which falls within the claimed range [0054].
Regarding claim 4, Hartmann et al. discloses the foil of claim 1 (see previous). Hartmann et al. further teaches that the foil is at least 80% amorphous, which falls within the claimed range [0057].
Regarding claim 5, Hartmann et al. discloses the foil of claim 1 (see previous). Hartmann et al. further teaches that embodiment 22 above has a liquidus temperature of 1010 degrees C, which falls within the claimed range [0096]. Alternatively, Hartmann et al. broadly teaches a liquid temperature range of 1080 degrees C or less, which overlaps with the claimed range [0043]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
The previous 102 rejections over Hartmann et al. have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hartmann et al. does not teach controlling B/Cr to achieve desired corrosion properties as disclosed in the instant application. In response, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant also argues that the embodiment 22 of Hartmann et al. does not meet the claimed ranges. The examiner cannot concur. The composition of embodiment 22 of Hartmann et al. is considered to be substantially close to the claimed range such that prima facie obviousness still exists because similar properties would have been expected from the close ranges wherein the only difference is a value of a mere 0.01 in B/Cr.
Applicant’s arguments are further moot in view of the new grounds of rejection over Coughlan et al. above.
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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights