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, see Remarks, filed 5/1/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Maeda (JP H10-298686) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments:
A) Maeda does not teach or suggest the sum of Mn, Cr, and V in the interliner is greater than the sum of Mn, Cr, and V in the core, and instead teaches the opposite. This argument is not persuasive. Maeda does not teach the opposite. The sum of wt% for Mn, Cr, and V in the interlayer of Maeda ranges from 0.4%-2.3% (¶ 10). The sum of wt% for Mn, Cr, and V in the core of Maeda ranges from 0.4%-2.0% (¶ 10). While it is possible that the sum of Mn, Cr, and V in the interliner is less than the sum of Mn, Cr, and V in the core, it is also possible it is greater, depending on the selection of amounts for these elements. Thus, it is established the prior art discloses an overlapping range compared to the claimed range.
B) Maeda does not teach or suggest why it is beneficial to have more Mn, Cr, and V in the interliner than the core layer. This argument is not persuasive. Maeda expressly teaches Cr increases the recrystallization of the intermediate material (¶ 27). Maeda also teaches the recrystallization temperature of the core material is lower than the recrystallization of the intermediate material (¶ 30). Thus, there is express motivation to have more Cr in the interliner than the core to ensure the difference in recrystallization temperature. Furthermore, assuming one of ordinary skill in the art did not know the effect of Mn or V on the recrystallization temperature, based on the teachings of Maeda alone, as much as possible should be equal except for Cr content to ensure the intermediate layer has a higher recrystallization temperature than the core. In addition, it should be noted the core of Maeda does not contain Cr or V (¶ 10). It should also be noted at least one example in Maeda (Table 8, Ex. 39) discloses an interliner alloy m (see Table 2) having a sum of Mn, Cr, and V greater than that of the core alloy A (see Table 1). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (JP H10-298686) in view of Kilmer.
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 9-10, Maeda teaches a multilayer aluminum alloy brazing sheet (¶ 1). The brazing sheet comprises a core material and an intermediate material on one or both sides of the core material (¶ 9). An Al-Si brazing filler metal is then formed on one or both sides (¶ 9), which corresponds to a 4XXX series aluminum alloy. Maeda teaches the recrystallization temperature of the core material is lower than the recrystallization of the intermediate material (¶ 30). The intermediate material has the following composition, as compared to the claimed composition, wt%:
Claim 1
Claim 4
Maeda, ¶ 10
Si
0.01%-0.2%
0.02%-0.1%
0%-1%
Cu
0.3%-0.6%
0.3%-0.6%
-
Mn
0.8%-1.9%
1.75%-1.9%
0.4%-2.0%
Cr
0%-0.2%
0.1%-0.2%
0%-0.3%
Zr
0%-0.15%
0%-0.15%
0%-0.3%
Fe
0%-0.4%
0.05%-0.4%
0%-0.5%
Zn
0%-3%
0%-1%
0%-5%
Mg
0%-0.2%
0.01%-0.1%
0%-1.5%
Ti
0%-0.3%
0%-0.3%
0%-0.3%
V
0%-0.1%
0%-0.1%
-
Bi
0%-0.5%
0%-0.5%
-
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The sum of wt% for Mn, Cr, Ti, Zr, and V in Maeda ranges from 0.4%-2.9% (¶ 10). With the exception of Cu, the composition of Maeda overlaps the claimed composition, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Maeda does not expressly teach the claimed Cu content.
The sum of wt% for Mn, Cr, and V in the interlayer of Maeda ranges from 0.4%-2.3% (¶ 10). The sum of wt% for Mn, Cr, and V in the core of Maeda ranges from 0.4%-2.0% (¶ 10). In addition, the core of Maeda does not contain Cr or V (¶ 10). Maeda expressly teaches Cr increases the recrystallization of the intermediate material (¶ 27). Maeda also teaches the recrystallization temperature of the core material is lower than the recrystallization of the intermediate material (¶ 30). Thus, there is express motivation to have more Cr in the interliner than the core to ensure the difference in recrystallization temperature. Furthermore, assuming one of ordinary skill in the art did not know the effect of Mn or V on the recrystallization temperature, based on the teachings of Maeda alone, as much as possible should be equal except for Cr content to ensure the intermediate layer has a higher recrystallization temperature than the core. Therefore, for the range of values, Maeda suggests the interlayer should contain more Mn, Cr, and V than the core.
Kilmer discloses an aluminum brazing sheet comprising an interliner having a similar composition to that of Maeda (¶¶ 33-34). Kilmer teaches including 0-1% Cu to the interliner to establish the appropriate electrochemical potential and potential difference between the core and interliner (¶ 34). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include Cu in the amount taught by Kilmer to the intermediate layer composition of Maeda in order to better establish the desired electrochemical properties of the brazing sheet. This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 5, Maeda teaches the recrystallization temperature of the core material is lower than the recrystallization of the intermediate material (¶ 30), and the core material is recrystallized (¶ 13). Hence, the core is at least partially recrystallized. Since the recrystallization temperature of the core is lower than the recrystallization of the intermediate material, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the intermediate material to be unrecrystallized when the core is crystallized.
Regarding claim 7, the sheets in Maeda are clad rolled (¶ 8), hence they are bonded together.
Regarding claim 8, the core of Maeda has the following composition, as compared to the claimed composition:
Claim 8
Maeda, ¶ 10
Si
0%-1.2%
0%-1%
Cu
0%-1.0%
0.1%-0.7%
Mn
0%-2%
0.4%-2.0%
Cr
0%-0.3%
-
Zr
0%-0.25%
-
Fe
0%-0.8%
0%-1%
Zn
0%-3%
-
Mg
0%-1.5%
0%-0.6%
Ti
0%-0.25%
0%-0.3%
Bi
0%-0.5%
-
Al
Balance
Balance
This composition overlaps the claimed composition, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 11, Maeda discloses vacuum brazing (¶ 29).
Regarding claim 12, Maeda teaches an exemplary brazing filler layer having the following composition, as compared to the claimed composition:
Claim 12
Maeda, ¶ 35
Si
5%-15%
10%
Cu
0%-2.0%
-
Mn
0%-1.0%
-
Fe
0%-1.0%
-
Zn
0%-3.0%
-
Mg
0%-2.0%
1.5%
Ti
0%-0.2%
-
Bi
0%-0.3%
0.1%
Al
Balance
Balance
Regarding claim 13, Maeda teaches the thickness of the intermediate layer is up to one half the thickness of the core (¶ 10), and the thickness of the brazing filler is 15% (¶ 35). According to these teachings, the brazing sheet of Maeda will have thicknesses for each layer which overlap the claimed thicknesses, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 14, Maeda teaches the core is homogenized (¶ 32).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Maeda teaches the core is homogenized (¶ 32). Maeda also teaches the intermediate material is subjected to hot rolling before clad rolling with the core and braze filler to form a braze sheet (¶ 12).
Regarding claim 17, Maeda teaches the brazing sheet is used to make the fluid passage material of a heat exchanger (¶ 8).
Regarding claims 18-20, Maeda teaches a conventional heat exchanger production process of brazing aluminum alloy fins between core plates formed of the aluminum alloy brazing sheet (¶¶ 2-3). Maeda also teaches vacuum brazing is used (¶ 4).
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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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 on 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights