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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicants’ arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicants have amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations.
Applicants’ arguments are directed at the amendment. Please see below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
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 17 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 17, the recitation of “wherein the depositing of aluminum silicon compound comprises depositing no less than 14 g/m2 and no more than 16 g/m2 of the aluminum silicon compound” is unclear since claim 15 does not include a step of depositing of aluminum silicon compound. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming wherein the second layer includes at least an aluminum silicon compound, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within the second layer is not less than 14 g/m2 and not more than 16 g/m2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites “ wherein the tube structure is made of aluminum alloy and the first layer is applied directly onto said aluminum alloy. “ which does not constitute a further limitation since claim 1 recites “tube structure made of an aluminum alloy” and “a first layer of material deposited directly on the outer surface of the tube structure,”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata (US11534872B2: Previously cited) in view of Terada (US20190105742A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Katsumata teaches a tube for heat exchanger (see Figure 1) comprising a tube structure (3) made of an aluminum alloy (see Col. 4 Lines [34-36]) and including an inner surface (inner surface of 3C) and an outer surface (3A and 3B: see Figure 3);
a first layer of material (7) deposited directly on the outer surface (3A and 3B) of the tube structure (3: see Figure 3), the first layer (7) having different chemical composition than the tube structure (see Col. 10 Lines [53-63]);
wherein the first layer (7) includes metallic material having a lower galvanic potential than the tube structure (Examiner notes that zinc has a more negative (lower) galvanic potential than aluminum alloys), wherein the first layer includes the deposition of zinc particles within the first layer (see Col. 10 Lines [53-63]), wherein the deposition of zinc is not less than 3 g/m^2 and not more than 7 g/m^2 (see Col. 6 Line [57] i.e. “Amount of Flux Applied: 3 to 20 g/m2”). Katsumata further teaches that another layer includes at least an aluminum silicon compound within the layer is not less than 14 g/m^2 and not more than 16 g/m^2 (see Col. 6 Line [13] i.e. “Amount of Brazing Powder Applied: 1 to 30 g/m^2”).
Katsumata does not teach a second layer of material deposited on the first layer of material, the second layer having different chemical composition than the tube structure and the first layer, and wherein the second layer is free of zinc particles, wherein the second layer includes at least an aluminum silicon compound, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within the second layer is not less than 14 g/m2 and not more than 16 g/m2.
Terada teaches a heat exchanger (1: see Figure 1) comprising a tube (2) that includes a first layer of material (33: see Figure 2) deposited directly on the outer surface (31) of the tube structure (see Figure 2) and a second layer of material (32) deposited on the first layer of material (33: see Figure 2), wherein the second layer (32) having different chemical composition than the tube structure (2) and the first layer (33: see ¶¶ [0024 and 0044]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the tube of Katsumata with a second layer of material deposited on the first layer of material, the second layer having different chemical composition than the tube structure and the first layer, as taught by Terada, such provision would provide the predictable benefit of enhancing corrosion resistance, see Terada’s ¶ [0075].
Katsumata in view of Terada does not teach that the second layer is free of zinc particles, wherein the second layer includes at least an aluminum silicon compound, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within the second layer is not less than 14 g/m2 and not more than 16 g/m2.
However, it would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second layer of Katsumata in view of Terada to be free of zinc particles, and includes at least an aluminum silicon compound, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within the second layer is not less than 14 g/m2 and not more than 16 g/m2 since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of enhancing corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 2, Katsumata as modified further teaches wherein the deposition of zinc within the first layer is 5 g/m^2 (Amount of Flux Applied: 3 to 20 g/m2 column 6 line 57 While the prior art teaches the claimed material amounts thus reading on the claim. It is further noted that, in the interest of compact prosecution, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Katsumata as modified further teaches wherein the tube structure is made of aluminum alloy and the first layer is applied directly onto said aluminum alloy (The tube 3 is produced by extruding the aluminum alloy. fig. 3 para. column 8 line 27 the tube 3 before brazing has a brazing coating film 7 which is formed by coating a front surface and a back surface, column 4 line 64-65).
Regarding claim 5, Katsumata as modified further teaches the tube according to claim 1, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within a layer is 15 g/m^2 (see Col. 6 Line [13] i.e. “Amount of Brazing Powder Applied: 1 to 30 g/m^2”).
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata (US11534872B2: Previously cited) in view of Terada (US20190105742A1: Previously cited) and further in view of Wintersteen (CN103502768B: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Katsumata does not teach wherein the aluminum silicon compound includes 12.6% of silicon.
Wintersteen teaches wherein the aluminum silicon compound includes 12.6% silicon (wherein the cladding head manifold of aluminum alloy plate comprises 9.0 to 11.0wt % Si).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube design of Katsumata to utilize the tube design of Wintersteen, the motivation to manufacture an aluminum heat exchanger with enhanced material systems (Summary Of Invention, While the prior art teaches the claimed material amounts thus reading on the claim. It is further noted that, in the interest of compact prosecution, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Katsumata as modified further teaches wherein size of aluminum silicon particle is not smaller than 5 um and not greater than 15 um (see Col. 11 Lines [31-35] i.e. “The mixed composition coating material for brazing is a coating material containing a Si powder (D ( 99 ) particle size 15 um : D ( 99 ) is a diameter in which the volume - based cumulative particle size distribution from the smaller particle size side is 99%”).
Regarding claim 7, Katsumata does not teach wherein the second layer includes a potassium aluminum fluoride flux and a binder.
Wintersteen teaches a layer includes a potassium fluoride flux (CAB flux comprises potassium fluoaluminate flux Preferred Embodiment para. 4) and a binder (in the brazing thermal degreasing before heat treatment process, the organic binder used on the raw aluminum component and any manufacturing oil has evaporated Preferred Embodiment para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify a layer design of Terada to be the layer design of Wintersteen, the motivation would be to increase the heat transfer efficiency (para. 4, While the prior art teaches the claimed material amounts thus reading on the claim.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata (US11534872B2: Previously cited) in view of Terada (US20190105742A1: Previously cited) and Wintersteen (CN103502768B: Previously cited) and in further view of Yamashita (US9132518: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Katsumata does not teach wherein the deposition of potassium aluminum fluoride flux within the second layer is not less than 6 g/m2 and not more than 8 g/m2.
Yamashita teaches wherein the deposition of potassium aluminum fluoride flux (the Zn-free compound flux powder may be a potassium fluoroaluminate. Summary of the invention para. 6) within a layer is not less than 6 g/m^2 and not more than 8 g/m^2 (the Zn-free compound flux powder being applied in an amount of 1 to 9 g/m2 summary of the invention para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube design of Katsumata to utilize the tube design of Yamashita, the motivation to reduce the weight of the heat exchanger to reduce automobile fuel consumption (Background, While the prior art teaches the claimed material amounts thus reading on the claim. It is further noted that, in the interest of compact prosecution, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Katsumata as modified further teaches wherein the deposition of potassium aluminum fluoride flux within the second layer is 7 g/m2 (see Summary of the invention para. 6 and 2 of Yamashita, the Zn-free compound flux powder may be a potassium fluoroaluminate and the Zn-free compound flux powder being applied in an amount of 1 to 9 g/m2).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata (US11534872B2: Previously cited) in view of Terada (US20190105742A1: Previously cited) and Wintersteen (CN103502768B: Previously cited) and in further view of YASUO (JP2011131247A: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Katsumata does not teach wherein the binder is an organic polymer, wherein the deposition of binder is not less than 4 g/m2 and not more than 6 g/m2.
YASUO teaches wherein the binder is an organic polymer, wherein the deposition of binder (A composition for brazing aluminum using a methacrylic acid ester polymer as a binder, with the aim of improving adhesion, brazing properties, etc. (paragraph 10) Patent Document 2 Para. 1) is not less than 4 g/m^2 and not more than 6 g/m^2 (the composition is suitably 3 to 100 g / m .sup.2 from the balance of brazing property and coating stability, preferably 5 ˜20 g / m .sup.2 .Description of Embodiments para. 44).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube design of Katsumata to utilize the tube design of YASUO, the motivation to ensure good performance (para. 0060, While the prior art teaches the claimed material amounts thus reading on the claim. It is further noted that, in the interest of compact prosecution, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, Katsumata as modified further teaches wherein the deposition of organic polymer within the second layer is 5 g/m2 (see YASUO’s para. 44, the composition is suitably 3 to 100 g / m .sup.2 from the balance of brazing property and coating stability, preferably 5 ˜20 g / m .sup.2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date to modify a layer design of Katsumata in view of Terada to be the layer design of YASUO, the motivation to ensure stability over time (para. 001, While the prior art teaches the claimed material amounts thus reading on the claim. It is further noted that, in the interest of compact prosecution, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata (US11534872B2: Previously cited) in view of Terada (US20190105742A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Katsumata teaches a heat exchanger (see Figure 1) configured to heat exchange between fluids (i.e. atmospheric air and liquid inside the heat exchanger) comprising at least one tube (3) including
a tube structure ( structure of 3) made of metal alloy (see Col. 4 Lines [34-36]) and including an inner surface (inner surface of 3C) and an outer surface (3A and 3B: see Figure 3),
a first layer of material (7) deposited directly on the outer surface (3A and 3B) of the tube structure (3: see Figure 3), the first layer (7) having different chemical composition than the tube structure (see Col. 10 Lines [53-63]);
wherein the first layer (7) includes metallic material having a lower galvanic potential than the tube structure (Examiner notes that zinc has a more negative (lower) galvanic potential than aluminum alloys), wherein the first layer includes the deposition of zinc particles within the first layer (see Col. 10 Lines [53-63]), wherein the deposition of zinc is not less than 3 g/m^2 and not more than 7 g/m^2 (see Col. 6 Line [57] i.e. “Amount of Flux Applied: 3 to 20 g/m2”). Katsumata further teaches that another layer includes at least an aluminum silicon compound within the layer is not less than 14 g/m^2 and not more than 16 g/m^2 (see Col. 6 Line [13] i.e. “Amount of Brazing Powder Applied: 1 to 30 g/m^2”).
Katsumata does not teach a second layer of material deposited on the first layer of material, the second layer having different chemical composition than the tube structure and the first layer, wherein the first layer is free of aluminum silicon compounds and wherein the second layer includes at least an aluminum silicon compound, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within the second layer is not less than 14 g/m2 and not more than 16 g/m2.
Terada teaches a heat exchanger (1: see Figure 1) comprising a tube (2) that includes a first layer of material (33: see Figure 2) deposited directly on the outer surface (31) of the tube structure (see Figure 2) and a second layer of material (32) deposited on the first layer of material (33: see Figure 2), wherein the second layer (32) having different chemical composition than the tube structure (2) and the first layer (33: see ¶¶ [0024 and 0044]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the tube of Katsumata with a second layer of material deposited on the first layer of material, the second layer having different chemical composition than the tube structure and the first layer, as taught by Terada, such provision would provide the predictable benefit of enhancing corrosion resistance, see Terada’s ¶ [0075].
Katsumata in view of Terada does not teach that the first layer is free of aluminum silicon compounds, wherein the second layer includes at least an aluminum silicon compound, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within the second layer is not less than 14 g/m2 and not more than 16 g/m2.
However, it would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second layers of Katsumata in view of Terada to have the first layer is free of aluminum silicon compounds, wherein the second layer includes at least an aluminum silicon compound, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within the second layer is not less than 14 g/m2 and not more than 16 g/m2 since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of enhancing corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 13, Katsumata as modified further teaches wherein the heat exchanger further comprises manifolds (1 and 2: see Figure 1), plurality of tubes (3) including open ends received in said manifolds (i.e. via 6) , and plurality of fins (4) interlaced between the tubes (3: see in Figure 1 where the fins 4 are disposed between the plurality of tubes 3 installed at predetermined intervals between the manifolds 1 and 2) wherein at least one tube is fixed between the manifolds (1 and 2) by brazing via second layer (32 of Terada), so that the manifolds are fluidly connected (see Col. 4 Lines [42-50]) .
Regarding claim 14, Katsumata as modified further teaches wherein the first layer is located in-between the outer surface and the portion of the fin which is brazed to the tube (In addition, the fins 4 are disposed between the plurality of tubes 3 installed at predetermined intervals between the header pipes 1 and 2, and these fins 4 are brazed to the front surface side or the back surface side of the tubes 3 fig. 2 column 4 line 42-45).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US20190105742A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Terada teaches a method of manufacturing tube for a heat exchanger comprising: providing aluminum alloy tube structure (the outer surfaces of the heat exchange tubes 2 formed from an extrudate made of an Al alloy, fig. 2 para. 0024), directly depositing a first layer of material (31) directly onto an outer surface of the tube structure by zinc arc spraying method (Also, the header tank body 11 may be formed from a tubular aluminum extrudate having a brazing material thermally sprayed to an outer circumferential surface thereof fig. 2 para. 0023), wherein liquid zinc is sprayed onto the outer surface to deposit about 5g/m2 of zinc (a Zn sprayed coating was formed on the outer surface of each heat exchange tube by thermal spraying such that Zn was sprayed in an amount of about 5.5 g/m2 para. 0065, the term about allows this to be used), so that the complete coverage of the outer surface and even distribution of the zinc is provided, drying the first layer, directly depositing a second layer (32) onto the first layer, drying the second layer (Subsequently, the heat exchange tubes were dried within a drying machine para. 0052).
Terada does not teach that the second layer (32) is free of zinc particles.
However, it would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second layer of Katsumata in view of Terada to be free of zinc particles since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of enhancing corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 16, Terada does not teach wherein the first layer is free of aluminum silicon compounds.
However, it would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second layers of Terada to have the first layer is free of aluminum silicon compounds since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of enhancing corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 17, Terada does not teach wherein the depositing of aluminum silicon compound comprises depositing no less than 14 g/m2 and no more than 16 g/m2 of the aluminum silicon compound.
However, it would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second layers of Terada to have the depositing of aluminum silicon compound comprises depositing no less than 14 g/m2 and no more than 16 g/m2 of the aluminum silicon compound since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of enhancing corrosion resistance.
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 KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights