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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are amended in view of applicant’s claim amendments in the response filed 6/18/2026. New claims 11-13 are added. Therefore, claims 1-13 are currently under examination.
Status of Claims
The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments in the response filed 6/18/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,285. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,285 teaches a strip for manufacture of a brazed heat exchanger having a core aluminum alloy, cladded on one or two faces with a brazing aluminum alloy and an interlayer aluminum alloy between the core and the brazing aluminum alloy, wherein the core aluminum alloy, the brazing aluminum alloy and the interlayer aluminum alloys described by claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,285 are significantly similar to the core aluminum alloy(i.e. composition overlaps the claimed core layer composition and lower limit of Mg at 0.1% being very close to the claimed upper Mn limit of 0.05% which is prima facie obvious according to MPEP2144.05), the brazing aluminum alloy and the interlayer aluminum alloys as recited in the instant claims. Additionally, claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,285 discloses a method of manufacturing the strip comprising the same casting, preheating, hot rolling, cold rolling and annealing steps as recited in the instant claims. The claimed heat exchanger and product comprising the claimed strip have also been taught by claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,285.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,922. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,922 teaches a strip for manufacture of a brazed heat exchanger having a core aluminum alloy, cladded on one or two faces with a brazing aluminum alloy and an interlayer aluminum alloy between the core and the brazing aluminum alloy, wherein the core aluminum alloy, the brazing aluminum alloy and the interlayer aluminum alloys described by claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.11,932,922 are significantly similar to the core aluminum alloy(i.e. composition overlaps the claimed core layer composition and upper limit of Mn at 1.4% being extremely close to the claimed lower Mn limit of more than 1.40% which is prima facie obvious according to MPEP2144.05), the brazing aluminum alloy and the interlayer aluminum alloys as recited in the instant claims. Additionally, claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.11,932,922 discloses a method of manufacturing the strip comprising the same casting, preheating, hot rolling, cold rolling and annealing steps as recited in the instant claims. The claimed heat exchanger and product comprising the claimed strip have also been taught by claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.11,932,922.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chehab et al. WO 2019/201750(Chehab).
Chehab teaches a multilayer brazing metal sheet comprising an aluminum alloy core made of AA 3xxx alloy, a brazing layer made of AA 4xxx alloy on at least one size of the core layer, and an interlayer between the core and the brazing layer (abstract). Chehab further teaches that the aluminum alloy core comprising a composition that applies to the claimed aluminum alloy core composition as follows:
Al alloy Core
Instant Application (wt%)
Chehab (wt%) (abstract)
Chehab (wt%)
(Table 1, Core-a)
Si
>0.25
≤ 0.70
0.10-0.30
Fe
<0.25
≤ 0.70
≤ 0.30
Cu
>0.60
0.20-1.10
0.60-0.90
Mn
>1.40
0.70-1.80
1.20-1.50
Mg
< 0.05
≤ 0.40
0.05-0.30
Zr
< 0.01
≤ 0.30
-
Cr
< 0.01
≤ 0.30
0.02-0.20
Zn
< 0.20
≤ 0.30
≤ 0.20
Impurities
<0.05 each & <0.15 in total
<0.05 each & <0.15 in total
<0.05 each & <0.15 in total
Remainder Al
Remainder Al
Remainder Al
Remainder Al
Regarding claim 1, the aluminum alloy core as taught by Chehab has a composition that overlaps the claimed Al alloy core composition. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed Al alloy core composition from the Al alloy core composition as taught by Chehab would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Chehab teaches the same utilities in its Al alloy core composition.
Regarding claims 2-3, Chehab teaches that the brazing layer on at least one surface of the core is made of 4xxx series aluminum alloy as claimed. Chehab further teaches that the 4xxx series aluminum alloy may be AA4045, which comprises, in wt%, 9 to 11% Si, up to 0.8% Fe, up to 0.30% Cu, up to 0.05% Mn, up to 0.05% Mg, up to 0.10% Zn, up to 0.20% Ti, other elements less than 0.05% each and less than 0.15% in total, balance being aluminum (page 9 lines 11-14), which reads on the claimed brazing layer composition.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 11-12, the interlayer in the multilayer brazing sheet of Chehab provides sacrificial anode protection(i.e. page 3 line 16, which read on the claimed covering alloy of the sacrificial anode type. Chehab further teaches that the interlayer is made of a 7xxx series aluminum alloy(page 3, lines 11-12), or is made of AA3003 alloy with Zn(page 4 lines 7-12) or is made of a 3xxx series aluminum alloy with 0.1-5wt% Zn and 0.5-1.5 wt% Mn(page 4 lines 13-16). Although Chehub does not explicitly teach the claimed specific 7xxx aluminum series alloy composition and the claimed specific 3xxx series aluminum alloy composition as recited in instant claims 4-5, the interlayer as taught by Chehub still reads on the claimed sacrificial anode type covering alloy because the claimed specific alloy compositions are optional limitations in claims 4-5.
Regarding claim 6 and 13, the interlayer aluminum alloy as taught by Chehub reads on the claimed interlayer aluminum alloy. The claimed specific alloy composition as recited in instant claim 6 is an optional limitation, therefore, does not patentably distinguish the claimed interlayer from the interlayer aluminum alloy of Chehub.
Regarding claim 7, Chehub further teaches that the interlayer aluminum alloy having an alloy composition that applies to the claimed interlayer aluminum alloy composition as follows:
Interlayer Al Alloy
Instant Application (wt%)
Chehab (wt%)
(page 9 lines 24-28)
Si
< 0.15
≤ 0.5
Fe
< 0.20
≤ 0.4
Cu
< 0.10
-
Mn
0.60-0.80
0.2-0.75
Mg
< 0.02 or < 0.50
≤ 0.40
Impurities
<0.05 each & <0.15 in total
<0.05 each & <0.15 in total
Remainder Al
Remainder Al
Remainder Al
The interlayer Al alloy composition as taught by Chehab overlaps the interlayer Al alloy composition. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed interlayer Al alloy composition from the interlayer Al alloy composition as taught by Chehab would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Chehab teaches the same utilities in its interlayer Al alloy composition.
Regarding claim 8, Chehab further teaches a method for manufacturing an Al alloy brazing sheet comprising casting the Al alloy core, forming the brazing Al alloy layer and the interface layer on to the Al alloy core, preheating to a temperature of 400-550°C, hot rolling the multilayer brazing aluminum alloy to an intermediate thickness of 2-4.5mm, cold rolling to the desired final thickness of 0.15-1.20mm, and annealing the multilayer brazing aluminum alloy at 250-450°C for at least 30min(page 12, line 20 – page 13 line 9). Since the hot rolling takes place after the brazing aluminum alloy is preheated, the examiner concludes that the hot rolling temperature in the process of Chehab would have been in the range of the preheating temperature 400-550°C. The process conditions as taught by Chehab overlap the process conditions as recited in instant claim 8. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed various process conditions from the corresponding process conditions as taught by Chehab would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Chehab teaches the same utilities in its disclosed process conditions.
Regarding claims 9-10, Chehab further teaches that the aluminum alloy brazing sheet is to be used in heat exchanger systems with improved strength and corrosion resistance(page 1 lines 5-9, page 11 lines 15-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims US 12,359,285 or US 11,932,922 are not persuasive for the same reasons set forth in sections 5-6 above.
Applicant further argues that Mg range in the core as taught by Chehab is higher than the claimed Mg range.
The examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing because Chehab clearly teaches in one of the embodiments that Mg is up to 0.10wt%(page 8 line 8), which significantly overlaps the claimed < 0.05 wt%. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Broader teaching of Chehab encompasses the claimed Mg amount.
Applicant’s further arguments regarding unexpected result is not sufficient because applicant compares some of the embodiments of claimed core composition with Core-b of Chehab, while the rejection is based on broader scope of the core composition as well as Core-a of Chehab, which has a core alloy composition that is closer to the claimed core alloy composition. Additionally, the Innov-Core-1, Innov-Core-2 and Innov-Core-3 are not commensurate with the scope of instant claim 1 as they merely represents 3 alloy compositions while the scope of instant claim 1 covers significantly more core alloy compositions with much broader Si, Fe, Cu, Mn ranges.
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 LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights