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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I – Claims 21-28 in the reply filed on 03 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 29-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for producing an aluminum alloy brazing sheet, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03 August 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 April 2024 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 21-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021157500A1 (machine translation) of Hashimoto in view of JPH0611295A (machine translation) of Takeno.
Regarding Claim 21, Hashimoto discloses an aluminum alloy brazing sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hashimoto teaches an aluminum alloy brazing sheet used in an automobile heat exchanger, Para[0002]. Hashimoto discloses that the core material is Si: 0.30% by mass or more and 1.00% by mass or less, Mn: 0.50% by mass or more and 2.00% by mass % Or less, Cu: 0.60% by mass or more and 1.20% by mass or less, Mg: 0.05% by mass or more and 0.80% by mass or less, the balance is composed of Al and unavoidable impurities, Para[0008]. Hashimoto also discloses Ti of core material: 0.30% by mass or less), Para[0022], (Cr of core material: 0.30% by mass or less), Para[0023], (Zr of core material: 0.30% by mass or less), Para[0024], and 0.05% mass or less of Zn, Para[0026]. The ranges for Si, Mn, Mg, Ti, Cr, Zr, and Zn overlap with the claimed ranges. Also, the ranges disclosed by Hashimoto for Si, Mn, and Mg would overlap with the claimed ranges for Mn content/Si content and Mg content + Si content. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Hashimoto does not disclose a range for Fe, this is an optional limitation. Hashimoto’s range for copper is higher than the claimed range.
Takeno discloses an aluminum alloy laminated heat exchanger with excellent corrosion resistance in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Takeno teaches that here shows the reasons for limiting the components in the preferred composition of the core material of the core plate in the present invention. Cu and at the same time increase the strength increase the potential. Its addition amount is 0.05% this effect is not sufficiently exerted is less than (percentages particular means weight% unless otherwise specified), the corrosion resistance and formability is decreased conversely exceeds 1.0%, Cu the addition amount was 0.05-1.0%, Para[0014]. This range for Cu overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of Cu taught by Takeno in the aluminum alloy brazing sheet disclosed by Hashimoto in order to achieve sufficient strength and corrosion resistance.
While Hashimoto and Takeno do not teach the specific numerical limitations related to yield strength in (a1) through (a5), Hashimoto and Takeno disclose an aluminum alloy brazing sheet for a heat exchanger that meets all the compositional limitations of claim 21. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the aluminum alloy of Hashimoto and Takeno would inherently exhibit the physical properties, including yield strength during a heating and high temperature retention test, of the claimed invention. Thus, Hashimoto in view of Takeno teaches all limitations of claim 21.
Claim 22 further limits claim 21 by claiming a multilayer including a three-layer material comprising an intermediate layer and a brazing material clad on one side surface of the core material in order of brazing material/intermediate material/core material, wherein the brazing material is formed of an aluminum alloy comprising 5.00 mass % to 13.00 mass % of Si, and the intermediate layer is formed of an aluminum alloy having a Mg content of 0.20 mass %or less.
Hashimoto discloses that the aluminum alloy brazing sheet according to the present invention comprises a core material, a sacrificial material provided on one surface of the core material, a brazing material provided on the other surface of the core material, and the core material and the brazing material. An aluminum alloy brazing sheet including an intermediate layer provided between them, Para[0008]. Hashimoto teaches (Mg in the intermediate layer: 0.20% by mass or less), Para[0044], and a brazing layer containing 5% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less (preferably 7% by mass or more and 13% by mass or less) of Si can be used, Para[0047]. This overlaps with the claimed value of Si in the intermediate layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Hashimoto teaches the additional limitations of claim 22. Thus, Hashimoto in view of Takeno teaches all limitations of claim 22.
Claim 23 further limits claim 21 by claiming a multilayer including a four-layer material comprising an intermediate layer and a brazing material cladded on one side surface of the core material and a sacrificial anode material cladded on the other side surface of the core material in order of brazing material/intermediate material/core material/sacrificial anode material, wherein the brazing material is formed of an aluminum alloy comprising 5.00 mass % to 13.00 mass %of Si, the intermediate layer is formed of an aluminum alloy having a Mg content of 0.20 mass %or less, and the sacrificial anode material is formed of an aluminum alloy comprising 0.50 mass % to 3.00 mass % of Zn.
Hashimoto discloses that the aluminum alloy brazing sheet according to the present invention comprises a core material, a sacrificial material provided on one surface of the core material, a brazing material provided on the other surface of the core material, and the core material and the brazing material. An aluminum alloy brazing sheet including an intermediate layer provided between them, Para[0008]. Hashimoto teaches (Mg in the intermediate layer: 0.20% by mass or less), Para[0044], a brazing layer containing 5% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less (preferably 7% by mass or more and 13% by mass or less) of Si can be used, Para[0047], and (Zn of sacrificial material: 2.00% by mass or more and 7.00% by mass or less), Para[0030]. This overlaps with the claimed value of Si in the intermediate layer and Zn in the sacrificial layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Hashimoto teaches the additional limitations of claim 23. Thus, Hashimoto in view of Takeno teaches all limitations of claim 23.
Regarding Claim 25, Hashimoto discloses an aluminum alloy brazing sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hashimoto teaches an aluminum alloy brazing sheet used in an automobile heat exchanger, Para[0002]. Hashimoto discloses that the core material is Si: 0.30% by mass or more and 1.00% by mass or less, Mn: 0.50% by mass or more and 2.00% by mass % Or less, Cu: 0.60% by mass or more and 1.20% by mass or less, Mg: 0.05% by mass or more and 0.80% by mass or less, the balance is composed of Al and unavoidable impurities, Para[0008]. Hashimoto also discloses Ti of core material: 0.30% by mass or less), Para[0022], (Cr of core material: 0.30% by mass or less), Para[0023], (Zr of core material: 0.30% by mass or less), Para[0024], and 0.05% mass or less of Zn, Para[0026]. The ranges for Si, Mn, Mg, Ti, Cr, Zr, and Zn overlap with the claimed ranges. Also, the ranges disclosed by Hashimoto for Si, Mn, and Mg would overlap with the claimed ranges for Mn content/Si content and Mg content + Si content. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Hashimoto does not disclose a range for Fe, this is an optional limitation. Hashimoto’s range for copper is higher than the claimed range.
Takeno discloses an aluminum alloy laminated heat exchanger with excellent corrosion resistance in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Takeno teaches that here shows the reasons for limiting the components in the preferred composition of the core material of the core plate in the present invention. Cu and at the same time increase the strength increase the potential. Its addition amount is 0.05% this effect is not sufficiently exerted is less than (percentages particular means weight% unless otherwise specified), the corrosion resistance and formability is decreased conversely exceeds 1.0%, Cu the addition amount was 0.05-1.0%, Para[0014]. This range for Cu overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of Cu taught by Takeno in the aluminum alloy brazing sheet disclosed by Hashimoto in order to achieve sufficient strength and corrosion resistance.
While Hashimoto and Takeno do not teach the specific numerical limitations related to Vickers Hardness in (b1) through (b5), Hashimoto and Takeno disclose an aluminum alloy brazing sheet for a heat exchanger that meets all the compositional limitations of claim 21. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the aluminum alloy of Hashimoto and Takeno would inherently exhibit the physical properties, including Vickers Hardness during a heating and high temperature retention test, of the claimed invention. Thus, Hashimoto in view of Takeno teaches all limitations of claim 25.
Claim 26 further limits claim 25 by claiming a multilayer including a three-layer material comprising an intermediate layer and a brazing material clad on one side surface of the core material in order of brazing material/intermediate material/core material, wherein the brazing material is formed of an aluminum alloy comprising 5.00 mass % to 13.00 mass % of Si, and the intermediate layer is formed of an aluminum alloy having a Mg content of 0.20 mass %or less.
Hashimoto discloses that the aluminum alloy brazing sheet according to the present invention comprises a core material, a sacrificial material provided on one surface of the core material, a brazing material provided on the other surface of the core material, and the core material and the brazing material. An aluminum alloy brazing sheet including an intermediate layer provided between them, Para[0008]. Hashimoto teaches (Mg in the intermediate layer: 0.20% by mass or less), Para[0044], and a brazing layer containing 5% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less (preferably 7% by mass or more and 13% by mass or less) of Si can be used, Para[0047]. This overlaps with the claimed value of Si in the intermediate layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Hashimoto teaches the additional limitations of claim 26. Thus, Hashimoto in view of Takeno teaches all limitations of claim 26.
Claim 27 further limits claim 25 by claiming a multilayer including a four-layer material comprising an intermediate layer and a brazing material cladded on one side surface of the core material and a sacrificial anode material cladded on the other side surface of the core material in order of brazing material/intermediate material/core material/sacrificial anode material, wherein the brazing material is formed of an aluminum alloy comprising 5.00 mass % to 13.00 mass %of Si, the intermediate layer is formed of an aluminum alloy having a Mg content of 0.20 mass %or less, and the sacrificial anode material is formed of an aluminum alloy comprising 0.50 mass % to 3.00 mass % of Zn.
Hashimoto discloses that the aluminum alloy brazing sheet according to the present invention comprises a core material, a sacrificial material provided on one surface of the core material, a brazing material provided on the other surface of the core material, and the core material and the brazing material. An aluminum alloy brazing sheet including an intermediate layer provided between them, Para[0008]. Hashimoto teaches (Mg in the intermediate layer: 0.20% by mass or less), Para[0044], a brazing layer containing 5% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less (preferably 7% by mass or more and 13% by mass or less) of Si can be used, Para[0047], and (Zn of sacrificial material: 2.00% by mass or more and 7.00% by mass or less), Para[0030]. This overlaps with the claimed value of Si in the intermediate layer and Zn in the sacrificial layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Hashimoto teaches the additional limitations of claim 27. Thus, Hashimoto in view of Takeno teaches all limitations of claim 27.
Claims 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021157500A1 (machine translation) of Hashimoto in view of JPH0611295A (machine translation) of Takeno as applied to claims 21 and 25 above, and further in view of WO2021204929A1 of Lentz.
Claim 24 further limits claim 21 by claiming a five-layer material comprising an intermediate layer and a brazing material cladded on one side surface of the core material and an intermediate layer and a brazing material cladded on the other side surface of the core material in order of brazing material/intermediate material/core material/intermediate layer/brazing material, wherein the brazing material is formed of an aluminum alloy comprising 5.00 mass % to 13.00 mass % of Si, and the intermediate layer is formed of an aluminum alloy having a Mg content of 0.20 mass %or less.
Hashimoto does not teach a five-layer material. Hashimoto does teach (Mg in the intermediate layer: 0.20% by mass or less), Para[0044], a brazing layer containing 5% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less (preferably 7% by mass or more and 13% by mass or less) of Si can be used, Para[0047]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Lentz discloses a high-strength solder-plated Al-Mg-Si aluminum material in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lentz discloses five-layer structure with an intermediate layer and an outer brazing layer, Para[0138]. Lentz teaches that Heat exchangers for motor vehicles are typically manufactured from aluminum strips or sheets by thermally joining the individual prefabricated components of the heat exchanger, such as fins, tubes and distributors. These heat exchangers are usually components of the heating and cooling systems in motor vehicles, Para[0005]. Lentz also teaches that in addition to high strength compared to other brazed materials, high corrosion resistance after brazing and high formability before brazing can also be achieved. Furthermore, the high strength and ductility allow for favorable crash characteristics, Para[0050]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the five-layer structure of Lentz to the aluminum alloy brazing sheet of Hashimoto in order to create a component for heating and cooling systems in motor vehicles that have high strength and high corrosion resistance after brazing. Thus, Hashimoto in view of Takeno and Lentz coves all limitations of claim 24.
Claim 28 further limits claim 25 by claiming a five-layer material comprising an intermediate layer and a brazing material cladded on one side surface of the core material and an intermediate layer and a brazing material cladded on the other side surface of the core material in order of brazing material/intermediate material/core material/intermediate layer/brazing material, wherein the brazing material is formed of an aluminum alloy comprising 5.00 mass % to 13.00 mass % of Si, and the intermediate layer is formed of an aluminum alloy having a Mg content of 0.20 mass %or less.
Hashimoto does not teach a five-layer material. Hashimoto does teach (Mg in the intermediate layer: 0.20% by mass or less), Para[0044], a brazing layer containing 5% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less (preferably 7% by mass or more and 13% by mass or less) of Si can be used, Para[0047]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Lentz discloses a high-strength solder-plated Al-Mg-Si aluminum material in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lentz discloses five-layer structure with an intermediate layer and an outer brazing layer, Para[0138]. Lentz teaches that Heat exchangers for motor vehicles are typically manufactured from aluminum strips or sheets by thermally joining the individual prefabricated components of the heat exchanger, such as fins, tubes and distributors. These heat exchangers are usually components of the heating and cooling systems in motor vehicles, Para[0005]. Lentz also teaches that in addition to high strength compared to other brazed materials, high corrosion resistance after brazing and high formability before brazing can also be achieved. Furthermore, the high strength and ductility allow for favorable crash characteristics, Para[0050]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the five-layer structure of Lentz to the aluminum alloy brazing sheet of Hashimoto in order to create a component for heating and cooling systems in motor vehicles that have high strength and high corrosion resistance after brazing to allow for favorable crash characteristics. Thus, Hashimoto in view of Takeno and Lentz coves all limitations of claim 28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights