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 species A in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 10, the claimed subject matter of “in an amount of 0.1 wt% or more and 8.0 wt%” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since it is not clear whether applicant is claiming that the range is greater than 0.1wt% or just one particular value of 8.0wt%.
Claim 11-18 are further rejected as they depend on the rejected claim 10.
Claims 10-18 are further rejected as can be best understood by the examiner in which the amount is greater than 0.1wt%.
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.
Claims 1-18 are as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US 2018/0209707) in view of Arafat (2010/0294166), as evidenced by Grasshoff et al. (4,737,299). Aoki et al. (US) discloses a heat transfer tube (50) comprising:a pipe body 51 including copper or a copper alloy (paragraph 60); and an anticorrosive film (52) formed on an outer surface of the pipe body (51), the anticorrosive film (52) includes an anticorrosive agent.
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 12, Aoki does not disclose the anticorrosive agent of (A) is in an amount of 0.1microgram or more and 200 micrograms or less
and the anticorrosive agent is calcium dinonylnaphthalene sulfonate.
Arafat discloses an anticorrosive film for copper (Table 1) comprises:
an anticorrosive agent of (A) calcium dinonylnaphthalene sulfonate (paragraph 20, fifth sentence) for the purpose of providing an alternative anticorrosion property.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ in Aoki et al. (US) (A) calcium dinonylnaphthalene sulfonate for the purpose of providing an alternative anticorrosion property as recognized by Arafat. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) In this instance, the substitution of the anticorrosive agent (i.e. benzotriazole) of Aoki et al. (US) with the anticorrosive agent (i.e. calcium dinonylnaphthalene sulfonate) of Arafat would have been obvious. Arafat also discloses (paragraph 30 and table 1) that the anticorrosive thickness is not critical but can ranged up to about 5000mg per square centimeter or in particular of 0.2 mg /cm2 (table 1) for a purpose of providing adequate protection.
Regarding claim 2, the formula as claimed, Arafat discloses the anticorrosive agent is (A) calcium dinonylnaphthalene sulfonate, i.e. an organic sulfonate. As evidenced by Grasshoff et al. (column 4, lines 20-30), the formula for calcium dinonylnaphthalene sulfonate is fundamentally well known in the art, which meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claims 4-6, Aoki et al further discloses (figure 4) a heat transfer fin (60) fixed to the heat transfer tube (50).
Regarding claims 7-9, Aoki et al. further discloses (figure 4 and paragraph 9) that the heat transfer fin (60) is formed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, and wherein the anticorrosive agent (rust preventive film is only on the pipe) is not present on an outer surface of the heat transfer fin.
Regarding claim 10, Aoki et al. (US) (paragraph 49) discloses the coating agent includes the anticorrosive agent (i.e. calcium dinonylnaphthalene sulfonate as taught by Arafat) in an amount of 0.1 wt% or more and 0.5 wt% or less, which meets the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, the formula as claimed, Arafat discloses the anticorrosive agent is (A) calcium dinonylnaphthalene sulfonate, i.e. an organic sulfonate. As evidenced by Grasshoff et al. (column 4, lines 20-30), the formula for calcium dinonylnaphthalene sulfonate is fundamentally well known in the art, which meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claims 13-15, Aoki et al further discloses (figure 4) a heat transfer fin (60) fixed to the heat transfer tube (50).
Regarding claims 16-18, Aoki et al. further discloses (figure 4 and paragraph 9) that the heat transfer fin (60) is formed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, and wherein the anticorrosive agent (rust preventive film is only on the pipe) is not present on an outer surface of the heat transfer fin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Longo (US 5,888,281A) discloses a corrosion inhibiting composition that has active calcium sulfonate with weight percentage.
Ciuba et al. (US 4,495, 225) discloses a composition for the prevention or inhibition of corrosion.
Kassinger et al. (US 3,565,843A) discloses an organic rust inhibiting composition.
Baldi (US 3,948,687) discloses a high temperature resistant diffusion coating.
Shang et al. (CN 108871010A) discloses heat exchanger with tube and fins with coating.
Flueraru et al. (RO 119727B1) discloses film forming corrosion preventing composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights