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 with traverse of Group I (claims 18-30) in the reply filed on 9/29/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Group I and II claims relate to method and product claims, respectively. Despite the claims relating to different groups/categories, unity of invention may still be acknowledged as per 37 CFR 1.475 (b), particularly since the combination pertains to the category (1) — A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product. Therefore, applicant believes that claims 18-30 of elected Group I, and claims 31-33 of Group II are not directed to patentably distinct inventions as the Examiner asserted and searching the limitations recited claims 18-30 of elected Group I and claims 31-33 of Group II does not impose a serious burden on the Office. MPEP §803 states that “[I]f the search and examination of an entire application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine it on the merits, even though it includes claims to independent or distinct inventions.” In view of the above, applicant respectfully request claims 31-33 of Group II be examined with elected claims 19-30 of elected Group I together.
This is not found persuasive because Group I does not require silicon, and more specifically does not require wherein the sheet has silicon particles greater than 400 particles/sqmm/% Si content. Accordingly, the applicant’s argument that process of claim 18 is specially adapted for the manufacture of the product of claim 31 is not persuasive. Additionally, Groups I-II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature, i.e., the silicon particles greater than 400 particles/sqmm/% Si content
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-30 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 18, line 16 it appears that “upto” should read as –up to--. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 28, line 2 it appears that “confirmations” should read as –configurations--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 18-21, 23, 25-26, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewett (EP-1345728B1 IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2023/0074427A1) (hereafter Kang).
With respect to claim 18, Hewett teaches a process of making an aluminium alloy brazing sheet (title), the process comprising the steps of— a. performing a primary cold rolling of a laminate structure comprising a core sheet of first aluminium alloy and a cladding sheet on at least one side of the core sheet with a second aluminium alloy, in a rolling mill to obtain a primary roll bonded laminate structure (paragraphs 6, 13, 26-27, and 30); b. performing at least one secondary cold rolling of the primary roll bonded laminate structure in the rolling mill to obtain the aluminium alloy brazing sheet; wherein the ratio (D/T) of the roll diameter (D) of the rolling mill in step a. to the thickness (T) of primary roll bonded laminate structure is in a range of 30 to 500, and the percentage of thickness reduction carried out during step a. is 40-70% (paragraphs 6, 11, 13, 27, and 30).
With respect to claim 18, Hewett teaches exit temperatures of not greater than 50ºC (paragraph 13), but does not explicitly teach that the primary roll bonded laminate structure exiting the rolling mill has a temperature in a range of more than 50 up to 150°C.
However, Kang explicitly teaches using cold rolling exit temperatures of 50°C to 150°C for aluminum (paragraphs 25, 129, 142, and paragraphs 190-191).
Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that although Hewett prefers temperatures of not greater than 50ºC, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the exit temperature of 50°C to 150°C as taught by Kang in the process of Hewett in order to allow for an improved aluminum alloy product without sticking, tearing, or breakage (note paragraph 142 of Kang for explicit motivation).
Since Hewett performs a primary cold rolling, a secondary cold rolling, with the claimed (D/T) ratio and thickness reduction of aluminum alloys, and Kang teaches the claimed exit temperature, it is the examiner’s position that the collective process of Hewitt and Kang intrinsically results the core sheet and the cladding sheet having their respective hardness (Hcore/Hcladding) in a ratio in the range of 0.8 to 1.2. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
With respect to claim 19, Hewett teaches wherein the primary rolling is performed with rolling speed in a range of 2 to 600 meters per minute (mpm) (paragraph 13).
With respect to claim 20, Hewett teaches wherein the core sheet and the cladding sheet have their respective thickness in a ratio in the range of 5 to 20 (claim 3).
With respect to claim 21, Hewett teaches a step of annealing the core sheet and the cladding sheet before primary cold rolling in step a (paragraph 6)
With respect to claim 23, Hewett teaches additionally comprising a step of annealing the aluminium alloy brazing sheet after step b (paragraph 6).
With respect to claim 25, Hewett teaches wherein the core sheet and the cladding sheet are surface treated before the primary cold rolling (paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 26, Hewett teaches wherein the surface treatment is selected from chemical cleaning and mechanical abrasion (paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 30, Hewett teaches wherein the primary roll bonded laminate structure has width in a range of 300-1500 mm (paragraph 13).
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewett and Kang as applied to claims 18 and 25 above, and further in view of Brun et al. (US 2023/0055410A1) (hereafter Brun).
With respect to claims 22 and 24, Hewett does not teach that the annealing steps are carried out at a temperature of 180-450° C. for 1-6 hours.
However, Brun teaches annealing aluminum sheets at a temperature of 180-450° C. for 1-6 hours (paragraphs 13, 89, 104, 112, and 123).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the anneal schedule of Brun in the collective process of Hewett and Kang in order to achieve the desired ductility, relieve internal stresses, and reduce hardness.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewett and Kang as applied to claims 18 and 25 above, and further in view of Yanagawa et al. (US 2025/0083205A1) (hereafter Yanagawa).
With respect to claim 26-27, Hewett does not teach wherein the surface treatment is selected from chemical cleaning, and wherein the chemical cleaning is carried out with an inorganic acid selected from HCl, H2SO4, HNO3, or an alkali selected from NaOH or KOH.
However, Yanagawa teaches the chemical cleaning is carried out with an inorganic acid selected from HCl, H2SO4, HNO3, or an alkali selected from NaOH or KOH (paragraphs 10, 110, 117, and 144).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the chemical cleaning of Yanagawa in the collective process of Hewett and Kang in order to remove contamination and improve brazeability.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewett and Kang as applied to claims 18 and 25-26 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (CN-110356069A) (hereafter Guo).
With respect to claim 28, Hewett does not teach wherein the mechanical abrasion is carried out with emery paper, steel brushes of confirmations selected from straight wire, twisted wire, and criss-cross wire.
However, Guo teaches cleaning aluminum foil using sand belt or steel wire brush (machine translation). The examiner takes Official Notice that steel wire brushes with straight wires are well known.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the steel wire brush of Guo for the cleaning process of Hewett in order to effectively remove an oxidation or contamination from the surface(s) of the aluminum foil components.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewett and Kang as applied to claims 18 and 25 above, and further in view of Takada et al. (EP-1992441A1) (hereafter Takada).
With respect to claim 29, Hewett does not teach wherein the core sheet and cladding sheet have surface roughness, Ra (Roughness Average) of above 0.5 microns.
However, Takada teaches the core sheet and cladding sheet have surface roughness, Ra (Roughness Average) of above 0.5 microns (paragraphs 60, 68, and 106).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the surface roughnesses of Takada in the collective process of Hewett and Kang in order to enhance adhesion of the aluminum materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735