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 filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection under 35 USC §112 (a)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of US ‘940 in view of Brazing are not persuasive.
The Examiner has interpreted both saddle portion 23 and interior alignment portion 26 together as the “inwardly extending support flange.” This is a reasonable interpretation in view of the definition of a flange as “a rib or rim for strength, guiding or attachment” (FLANGE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster).
Applicant’s argument that the alignment portion cannot be considered part of the support flange is not considered persuasive. It is a portion which allows the proper assembly of the pipes and as such may reasonable considered supporting. In any event it is a flange which is capable of support which would be all that is required under MPEP §2113. And further the saddle which is also interpreted as part of the inwardly extending support flange provides direct support.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the materials comprising the inwardly extending support flange and bending of said flange are not persuasive as they are not present in the claim language.
Applicant’s argument that the joint could not form a 3T rule as the braze material is not between 26 and the pipe is not persuasive as the Examiner has interpreted both 26 and 23 together as comprising the inwardly extending support flange and there is braze material between 23 and the pipe.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 8-11 be found allowable, claims 22-25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 8-14 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4103940 (hereinafter US ‘940) in view of Brazing Copper Tubing Better and Faster by Walter Sperko 2003 (hereinafter “Brazing”).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 22 and 23
US ‘940 teaches: A joint comprising: a) a first elongate tube (22) comprising an end condition (end of 22) comprising a support section flange (comprising exterior saddle portion 23 and interior alignment portion 26 which is clearly seen to extend inwardly in Figs. 1-5) ; b) a filler material (Col. 4, ll. 14-21; although this is inherently part of the definition of brazing); and c) a second elongate tube (21), wherein the filler material is disposed between the support section flange and second elongate tube (Col. 4, ll. 14-21 , and wherein the joint is configured to have a sufficient overlap (Col. 4, ll. 20-25).
US ‘940 does not specifically state that at least a 3T rule is used for the joint overlap. Note that “3T” is an art term which means that a surface contact has a length of 3 times the thinnest portion of the braze members.
As discussed in Brazing 3T is a known brazing overlap technique (see table 1 page 7) and that the overlap amount in “T”s is determined by the designer’s need to ensure adequate joint strength (page 3 paragraph 4). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the overlap of the joint such that is configured to satisfy a 3T rule in order to ensure sufficient strength at the joint.
For claim 9 it is noted that Brazing discloses a 3T ratio which by definition includes at least three times a surface contact as a thinnest portion of the first elongate tube or the second elongate tube (as those are the only two things being joined).
Regarding claims 10 and 24,
The modified US ‘940 teaches all of the limitations as discussed above but fails to teach a specific instance of a 5T rule joint or specifically wherein the joint is configured to have at least five times the surface contact as a thinnest portion of the first elongate tube or the second elongate tube (this is definitionally a 5T rule). In page 3 of Brazing it is discussed that a designer may pick a higher ratio of surface contact to the thinnest portion of the pipes to be brazed and that this is a result effective variable which changes the strength of the braze joint. From page 3 of Brazing:
Although the “2t” overlap rule works for many commonly used combinations of materials, it is possible to pick a combination of base metal and filler metal (e.g., stainless steels brazed with pure silver) where greater overlap is required to achieve full strength in the joint. One should always verify the adequacy of the minimum overlap one intends to use by testing.
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the joint such that is configured to have at least five times the surface contact as a thinnest portion of the first elongate tube or second elongate tube as this a known result effective variable which dictates the strength of the braze joint and a designer may need/desire a higher strength braze joint.
Regarding claims 11 and 25
The modified US ‘940 further teaches wherein the support section flange creates a heat sink (Fig. 3 noting that the extent of the flange and it exposing extra area to the atmosphere will necessarily result in additional conduction and convection of heat and thus can reasonably be considered a “heat sink”).
Regarding claim 12
The modified US ‘940 further teaches wherein the end condition is a saddle or coped end condition (Fig. 3 “saddle”).
Regarding claim 13
The modified US ‘940 teaches wherein the support section flange is disposed against a flat portion of the second elongate tube (Fig. 3: the first fold of the braze area – the portion exposed to the outside – can be considered the flat portion and the second portion can be considered the flange).
Regarding claim 14
The modified US ‘940 fails to teach a specific braze filler material, but Brazing teaches that copper is a common braze material, as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to make the braze filler out of copper. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the selection of a material known to be suitable for an intended function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2177).
Regarding claim 21,
The modified ‘940 does not specifically teach that the brazing material has a lower melting point than either the tubes. While the examiner cannot think of an instance where this is not the case as brazing involves melting a filler material to move by capillary action to join a non-melted base material it is not considered inherent. However, as can be seen from Brazing in Page 3 mild steel can be the substrate for brazing with a copper filler material (it is of course inherent that mild steel has a much higher melt point than copper). As such making the elongate first and second tube, i.e. the substrate materials out of steel, and the braze material out of copper is nothing more than the selection of known substrates and braze materials which would preform predictably and thus would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (see MPEP §2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights