DETAILED 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 14, 16-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication Number 2020/085485 (Corresponding U.S. 2021/0394313 utilized as translation and cited herein as “Yamayoshi”).
In regards to independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 14, 16-17, 19, 21, and 22, Yamayoshi is directed to an aluminum alloy brazing sheet used for brazing an aluminum material in an inert gas atmosphere or in a vacuum without using a flux. (¶1) Brazing joint is widely used as a method for joining products including a number of minute joining portions, such as heat exchangers and machine components made of aluminum. (¶2) This method would involve contacting first and second parts and coupling them together by at least one of a controlled atmospheric brazing and vacuum brazing.
The brazing sheet includes a four-layer material in which a brazing material, an intermediate material, a core material, and a brazing material are stacked in this order. (¶14-19) The product may also be a five-layer material in which a brazing material, an intermediate material, a core material, an intermediate material, and a brazing material are stacked in this order. (¶31)
The intermediate material (corresponding to the claimed interliner layer) being formed of an aluminum alloy comprising Mg of 0.40 to 6.00 mass % and Zn exceeding 2.00 mass % and equal to or less than 8.00 mass %, with the balance being aluminum and inevitable impurities. (¶16) The intermediate material further comprises one or two or more of Mn of 2.00 mass % or less, Cu of 1.20 mass % or less, Cr of 0.30 mass % or less, and Zr of 0.30 mass % or less, and total of contents of Mn, Cr, and Zr is 0.10 mass % or more. (¶20) These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
The intermediate material comprises magnesium. (¶90) Because magnesium has lower free energy of oxide formation than that of aluminum, magnesium included in the intermediate material is diffused into the brazing material in brazing heating to break the oxide film of aluminum covering the surface of the brazing material. (¶90)
The intermediate material comprises zinc. (¶91) Zinc included in the intermediate material has the effect of setting the potential less noble and exhibits the sacrificial anticorrosion effect by forming a difference in potential between the intermediate material and the core material. (¶91) This demonstrates that the intermediate layer would act as a sacrificial anode and the substrate layer acts as a cathode of a galvanic circuit within the brazing sheet. This also shows that it is known that the inclusion of this element within the intermediate material has this effect.
The brazing materials (corresponding to the claimed brazing layer) are formed of an aluminum alloy comprising Si of 4.00 to 13.00 mass % with the balance being aluminum and inevitable impurities. (¶18) This corresponds to a 4xxx series aluminum alloy. The composition overlaps the claimed compositional ranges. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
The core material (corresponding to the claimed substrate layer) is formed of an aluminum alloy comprising Mg of 0.20 to 2.00 mass % and further comprising one or two or more of Mn of 1.80 mass % or less, Si of 1.50 mass % or less, Fe of 1.00 mass % or less, Cu of 1.20 mass % or less, Ti of 0.30 mass % or less, Zr of 0.30 mass % or less, and Cr of 0.30 mass % or less, with the balance being aluminum and inevitable impurities. (¶17) These compositional ranges overlap the claimed ranges and include compositions that fall within the claimed series. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
The clad ratio of the brazing material and the intermediate material is generally approximately 3 to 30%. (¶135) This range overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
It appears from the instant application that the compositions of the respective layers results in the claimed galvanic properties. The instant application teaches that “[t]o enhance the corrosion resistance of the substrate layer 102, the interliner layer 106 is configured to act as a sacrificial anode and the substrate layer is configured to act as a cathode of a galvanic circuit within the brazing sheet 100.” (¶21 of corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0217036) In order to suitably configure the galvanic circuit within the brazing sheet 100 so that the interliner layer 106 acts as a sacrificial anode, the interliner layer 106 is configured with a composition that has a more negative corrosion potential than a composition of the substrate layer 102.” (¶23 of corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0217036) The interliner layer 106 can comprise zinc (Zn), which can create a more electronegative corrosion potential of the interliner layer 106. (¶23 of corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0217036)
Therefore, since Yamayoshi sets forth layers that correspond to the claimed layers and the compositional ranges for the respective layers overlap the claimed ranges it would be expected that the resulting brazing sheet would have the claimed properties, including the sacrificial anode effect, cathode effect, and corrosion resistance.
As to claim 18, the core material is homogenized if necessary. (¶140)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant points to Table 2, Brazing Sheets 2 and 3, to assert surprising results of the relative interliner thickness.
This argument is not found to be persuasive.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. MPEP 716.02(d).
Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. MPEP 2144.05,III,A. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d),II.
First, Applicant has failed to set forth a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. Applicant’s own arguments are limited to two examples, Brazing Sheet 2 and Brazing Sheet 3. This is insufficient to show criticality of the claimed range.
Second, the assertion as to unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claim as currently presented. For example, Independent claim 1 sets forth no limitations as to the aluminum alloy substrate composition or 4xxx series aluminum alloy composition. Instant claim 1 also sets forth no limitation as to the thicknesses of the substrate layer or the brazing layer. The asserted examples are limited to a single substrate layer composition, a single interliner layer composition, and a single brazing layer composition. There is no indication in this data these results would be expected to be commensurate with the incredibly broad scope of the claims as currently presented.
Further, it is not clear that the results of changing the thickness of the interliner as asserted by Applicant would be unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
U.S. Patent Number 6,627,330 explicitly discusses selecting a thickness of an intermediate layer material to ensure corrosion resistance. (7:59-60) This reference sets forth that if the thickness is less than a certain amount the corrosion resistance decreases, while if it is greater than the thickness of the core the clad rolling stability decreases. (7:60-67)
Applicant presents arguments relating to a claimed species or subgenus, citing MPEP 2144.08,II.
This argument is not found to be persuasive.
It is unclear why Applicant cites arguments directed to a species or subgenus, when the instant case it not a genus/subgenus situation but rather overlapping ranges. Therefore, the cited portion of the MPEP is not germane to the issue at hand.
MPEP 2144.05 discussed the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05,I.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches that the clad ratio of the brazing material and the intermediate material is generally approximately 3 to 30%. (¶135) This range overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness is established. One of ordinary skill in the art would be merely following the teachings of this reference to select a value within this explicit range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784