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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/9/26 has been entered.
The amendment filed 1/9/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 13 and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1-12,14 and 16-19 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Considering the response filed 1/9/26, the 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4,6-9,11,14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) further in combination with EP 2547709.
Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches a multilayer protective coating for an aluminum heat exchanger whereby the aluminum heat exchanger is comprised of an aluminum alloy, pre-treating the heat exchanger by cleaning, coating the cleaned heat exchanger with a conversion coating including trivalent chromium, electro-coating a layer on the conversion coating and finally applying a top coat to the electro-coating layer (abstract, col. 1, line 60 – col. 2, line 5 and col. 2, lines 33-54). Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches the heat exchangers to be fins, tube or a plate (col. 1, lines 24-32).
Patterson et al. (9,417,018) fails to teach the topcoat to include UV protection.
Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) teaches a similar coating method for aluminum substrates including a conversion first coating and a top coating whereby the top coating includes UV resistance (abstract). Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) teaches heat exchangers to include fins, tubes and plates [0001],[0002],[0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Patterson et al. (9,417,018) coating to include UV protection of the topcoat as evidenced by Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) to further protect the heat exchangers.
Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) fail to teach the top coating to be a waterborne coating including greater than 50% water and less than 75 g/L solvents.
EP 2547709 teaches water-based coating compositions for coating metal substrates including aluminum for corrosion protection coatings. The multilayered coating can include an electrocoating is applied prior to and then the corrosion protection coating including as little organic solvent as possible and provide chip resistance. The VOC amounts desired is less than 450 g/L and particularly less than 250 g/L (pgs 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) process to include a waterborne coating vs solvent borne coating as evidenced by EP 2547709 with the expectation of improved durability of chip resistance.
Regarding claim 1, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches the heat exchangers to be fins, tube or a plate (col. 1, lines 24-32). Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) teaches heat exchangers to include fins, tubes and plates [0001],[0002],[0015]. EP 2547709 teaches less than 250 g/L which would be inclusive of the claimed less than 75 g/L. It has been well settled overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of EP 2547709 VOC content range (75 g/L or less) that corresponds to the claimed range absent a showing of criticality thereof. In fact, the specification provides for no such criticality [0030]. Furthermore, EP 2547709 states “as little organic solvent as possible” suggests close to zero or even zero. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Regarding the penetration of the heat exchanger of at least 0.5mm, the Examiner takes the position that the topcoat would penetrate the heat exchanger as it is applied thereto and would need to be penetrating to provide UV and anti-corrosion protection thereof. It has been well settled that the art does not recognize any distinction between coating and impregnating and hence this amount would be formed. In re Marra et al., 141 USPQ 221.
Regarding claim 2, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches cleaning with a degreasing non-silicate alkaline solution (col. 3, lines 10-12)
Regarding claim 3, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches the conversion coating with trivalent chromium includes hexafluorozirconic acid (col. 3, lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 4, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches the conversion coating with trivalent chromium to include a trivalent chromium sulfate (col. 3, lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 6, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches the conversion coating to be contacted for about 10 minutes at ambient temperatures (col. 3, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 7, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches the conversion coated heat exchanger is used as a cathode while the organic corrosion inhibitor is suspended in the bath (col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 1).
Regarding claim 8, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches the electro-coating to have a thickness of 25 microns within the claimed 5-50 microns (col. 4, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 9, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches drying the electro-coating after formatting this on the heat exchanger (col. 4, lines 14-18).
Regrading claim 11, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches the top coating to include liquid polyurethanes (col. 4, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 14, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches spraying the top coating on the electro-coat (col. 4, lines 24-26).
Regarding claims 16, the thickness of the top coating is 25 microns within the claimed 10-100 microns [0022].
Regarding claim 17 and 18, Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches the top coat to include pigments and hence would include the top coat having coloring (col. 4, lines 26-33).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) further in combination with EP 2547709 in combination with Moravek et al. (10,987,697).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) further in combination with EP 2547709 are incorporated here.
Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) further in combination with EP 2547709 fails to teach the conversion coating to include a weight of at least 0.05g/m2 and using adhesion promoters in the first mixture.
Moravek et al. (10,987,697) teaches a conversion layer having 0.6g/liter which is equivalent to 6,000 g/m2 (pg. 3 and 4 - examples 1-3). Moravek et al. (10,987,697) teaches improved adhesion of subsequent overlaying coating using the composition which would meet the claimed “adhesion promoters” (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) further in combination with EP 2547709 process to include the claimed weight of passivation layer as evidenced by Moravek et al. (10,987,697) with the expectation of similar success, i.e. a conversion coating of aluminum alloys.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) further in combination with EP 2547709 in combination with Church (2009/0280253).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) further in combination with EP 2547709 are incorporated here.
Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) further in combination with EP 2547709 fails to teach the top coating to not require heating or chemical curing.
Church (2009/0280253) teaches a process and composition for treating metal surfaces using composition that can be dried in place, i.e. do not require heat or chemical curing (abstract and [0039]-[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Patterson et al. (9,417,018) in combination with Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) further in combination with EP 2547709 to include a “dried in place” topcoat as evidenced by Church (2009/0280253) with the expectation of producing similar success without the expense or need for curing.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12,14 and 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued prior art failed to teach the claimed heat exchanger to be a fin, tube or plate.
The Examiner disagrees as both Patterson et al. (9,417,018) and Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) teach this as detailed above.
Applicant argued the claimed amount of VOC less than 75 g/L is not taught.
EP 2547709 teaches this as detailed above.
Applicant argued Patterson et al. (9,417,018) teaches a solvent based top coat and that Hromadka et al. (2014/0324234) doesn’t teach heat exchanger.
The Examiner agrees and has applied EP 2547709 for teaching the VOC amounts as well as teaching coating metal substrates including aluminum while Patterson et al. (9,417,018) and Jaworowski et al. (2012/0183755) teach the heat exchangers being aluminum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached on 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712