CTNF 18/550,606 CTNF 101684 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/14/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1, 12, and 15 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term “l ightweight” in claim 1, 12, and 15 i s a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “l ightweight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. F or examination purposes “lightweight metal alloy is construed as a metal alloy”— Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are rejected for dependency from one or more of the above rejected claims Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Terada et al.(US20190105742A1) . Regarding claim 15, teaches a method of manufacturing tube for a heat exchanger comprising:- providing a lightweight metal 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), - depositing a first layer of material 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, - depositing a second layer onto the first layer, - drying the second layer (Subsequently, the heat exchange tubes were dried within a drying machine para. 0052) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s ) 1-3 & 5-6 & 12-14 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ka tsumata et al.(US11534872B2) in view of Terada et al.(US20190105742A1). Re garding claim 1, Katsumata teaches a tube for heat exchanger (a heat exchanger 100 fig. 1 column 4 line 27), comprising a tube structure made of lightweight metal alloy and including an inner surface and an outer surface (the tube 3 fig. 3 column 4 line 64); a first layer (shown in fig. 3 a brazing material layer 13 and the brazing coating film 7) having different chemical composition than the tube structure (A Zn-containing flux forms a Zn diffusion layer on the surface of the tube 3 fig. 3 column 6 line 25-26), Katsumata teaches a layer having different chemical composition than the tube structure and the first layer (A brazing powder formed of a Si powder, an Al—Si powder, or the like is melted and turns into a brazing liquid in brazing, and forms a brazing filler metal which joins the fins 4 and the tubes 3 fig. 3 column 6 line 3-5), wherein the first layer includes metallic material having a lower galvanic potential (In a case where the fin 4 contains Zn, the potential of the fin 4 can be lowered, and thus a sacrificial anti-corrosive effect can be imparted to the fin 4) than the tube structure wherein the first layer includes the deposition of zinc particles (Thus, a uniform Zn diffusion layer is formed, and corrosion resistance of the tube 3 can be improved. fig. 3 column 6 line 11-12) within the first layer wherein the deposition of zinc is not less than 3 g/m^2 and not more than 7 g/m^2(Amount of Flux Applied: 3 to 20 g/m2 column 6 line 57), and in that the 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 (Amount of Brazing Powder Applied: 1 to 30 g/m2 column 6 line 13 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). Katsumata does not teach a second layer of material on the first layer of material. Terada teaches a second layer of material on the first layer of material (A diffusion layer 33 containing Zn, Si and Cu diffused from the covering layer 32 is formed in an outer surface layer portion of the main body portion 31 fig. 2 para. 0044). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tube design of Katsumata to be the tube design of Terada, the motivation would be to add a second layer to enhance corrosion resistance (para. 007, 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 2, Katsumata teaches the tube according to claim 1, 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 teaches the tube according to claim 1, 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 teaches the tube according to claim 1, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within a layer is 15 g/m^2 (Amount of Brazing Powder Applied: 1 to 30 g/m2 column 6 line 13, 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 teaches the tube according to claim 4, wherein size of aluminum silicon particle is not smaller than 5 pm and not greater than 15 pm (Si powder (D(99) particle size 15 μm: D(99) is a diameter in which the volume-based cumulative particle size distribution from the smaller particle size side is 99% fig. 3 column 11 line 33-34 While the prior art teaches the claimed material size 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 12, Katsumata teaches A heat exchanger (a heat exchanger 100 fig. 1 column 4 line 27) configured to heat exchange between fluids comprising at least one tube. including - a tube structure made of lightweight metal alloy and including an inner surface and an outer surface,-a first layer (shown in fig. 3 a brazing material layer 13 and the brazing coating film 7) of material on the outer surface of the tube structure, the first layer having different chemical composition than the tube structure (A Zn-containing flux forms a Zn diffusion layer on the surface of the tube 3 fig. 3 column 6 line 25-26), the layer having different chemical composition than the tube structure and the first layer (A brazing powder formed of a Si powder, an Al—Si powder, or the like is melted and turns into a brazing liquid in brazing, and forms a brazing filler metal which joins the fins 4 and the tubes 3 fig. 3 column 6 line 3-5), wherein the first layer includes metallic material having a lower galvanic potential (In a case where the fin 4 contains Zn, the potential of the fin 4 can be lowered, and thus a sacrificial anti-corrosive effect can be imparted to the fin 4) than the tube structure, wherein the first layer includes the deposition of zinc particles (Thus, a uniform Zn diffusion layer is formed, and corrosion resistance of the tube 3 can be improved. fig. 3 column 6 line 11-12) within the first layer, wherein the deposition of zinc is not less than 3 g/m2 and not more than 7 g/m2 (Amount of Flux Applied: 3 to 20 g/m2 column 6 line 57), and in that a layer includes at least an aluminum silicon compound, wherein the deposition of aluminum silicon compound within the layer is not less than 14 g/m2 and not more than 16 g/m2 (Amount of Brazing Powder Applied: 1 to 30 g/m2 column 6 line 13 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). Katsumata does not teach a second layer of material on the first layer of material. Terada teaches a second layer of material on the first layer of material (A diffusion layer 33 containing Zn, Si and Cu diffused from the covering layer 32 is formed in an outer surface layer portion of the main body portion 31 fig. 2 para. 0044). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tube design of Katsumata to be the tube design of Terada, the motivation would be to add a second layer to enhance corrosion resistance (para. 007, 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 13, Katsumata teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 13, wherein the heat exchanger further comprises manifolds, plurality of tubes including open ends received in said manifolds, and plurality of fins interlaced between the tubes (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), wherein at least one tube is fixed between the manifolds by brazing via second layer (That is, as shown in the cross-section of FIG. 2, a fillet 8 is formed with a brazing material at a portion where an end portion of the tube 3 is inserted into the slit 6 of the header pipe 1 or 2, and the tube 3 is brazed to the header pipe 1 or 2 column 4 line 47-50), so that the manifolds are fluidly connected. Regarding claim 14, Katsumata teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 13, 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata et al.(US11534872B2) in view of Terada et al.(US20190105742A1) and further in view of Wintersteen et al.(CN103502768B1) . Regarding claim 4, 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 7, 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata et al.(US11534872B2) in view of Wintersteen et al.( CN103502768B1) and in further view of Yamashita et al.(US9132518) . Regarding claim 8, 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/m 2 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, 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 the second layer is 7 g/m^2 (the Zn-free compound flux powder being applied in an amount of 1 to 9 g/m 2 (summary of the invention para. 2, 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata et al.(US11534872B2) in view of Terada et al.(US2019105742A1) and in further view of Wintersteen et al.( CN103502768B1) and YASUO (JP2011131247A) . Regarding claim 10, 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, YASUO teaches wherein the deposition of organic polymer within the second layer is 5 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 filling date to modify a layer design 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). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-5795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 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, 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. /HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 13 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 14 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/550,606 Page 15 Art Unit: 3763