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
Claims 8 and 1-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/23/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9 and Species B fig 4 and claims 1-7 and 9 in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the independent claims have corresponding distinguishable features over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the rejection below shows that the features of claim 1 does not distinguish over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-2, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta et al. (US Patent No.: 9,022,099 hereinafter “Fukuta”) in view of UMEDA et al. (US Publication No.: 2018/0134910 hereinafter “UMEDA”).
With respect to claims 1-2, Fukuta discloses a heat exchanger (Fig. 1) comprising: a matrix having a channel for fluid flow (Fig. 5, heat exchanger 4 has liquid fluid channels in tubes and air fluid that flows across the fins); and a coating layer coated on at least part of a surface of the matrix (Col. 1, lines 55-Col. 2, line 7), the coating layer including a hydrophobic layer (Col. 1, lines 55-Col. 2, line 7); wherein the hydrophobic layer includes a low surface energy silane material (Col. 3, lines 17-24).
Fukuta is silent to corrosion inhibiting particles distributed in the low surface energy silane material (as per claim 1) wherein the corrosion inhibiting particles are configure to release corrosion inhibiting ions, and the corrosion inhibiting ions are selected from at least one type of cerium ions, vanadium ions, lanthanum ions, praseodymium ions, molybdenum ions, zinc ions and zirconium ions (as per claim 2).
UMEDA teaches a corrosion inhibiting particle that contains cerium or vanadium etc (Para 0125 table 3, silane coupling agent (F) with anticorrosive material (G)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the hydrophobic layer of Fukuta with the corrosion inhibiting particles as taught by UMEDA to have corrosion and moisture resistance (Para 0128).
With respect to claim 5, Fukuta and UMEDA teach the heat exchanger according to claim 1 as discussed above. Fukuta also discloses wherein the low surface energy silane material comprises silane with a hydrophobic group grafted on the surface, and the hydrophobic group is selected from at least one of a hydrocarbyl group, a halogen atom and a nitro group (Col. 3, lines 15-24).
It is noted that claim 5 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. grafted on the surface) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 6, Fukuta and UMEDA teach the heat exchanger according to claim 1 as discussed above. Fukuta and UMEDA teach wherein the hydrophobic coating layer further comprises hydrophobic particles, and surfaces of the hydrophobic particles are connected with hydrophobic groups; at least part of surfaces of the corrosion inhibiting particles are connected with hydrophobic groups (Col. 3, lines 9-24 and UMEDA table 3 teaches corrosion particles).
With respect to claim 7, Fukuta and UMEDA teach the heat exchanger according to claim 1 as discussed above. Fukuta and UMEDA teach wherein the hydrophobic coating layer comprises 0.5 to 1.5 parts by mass of the low surface energy silane material and 0.1 to 5 parts by mass of the corrosion inhibiting particles; or, the hydrophobic coating layer comprises 0.5 to 1.5 parts by mass of a low surface energy silane material, 1 to 4 parts by mass of hydrophobic particles and 0. 1 to 1 part by mass of corrosion inhibiting particles (Table 3 and Para 0021 it can be 30% or less which means to can be between 0.1-1.5).
With respect to claim 9, Fukuta and UMEDA teach the heat exchanger according to claim 1 as discussed above. Fukuta also discloses wherein the heat exchanger comprises a collecting pipe (Fig. 5, heat exchanger 4 has header or collecting pipe7c), a fin and a plurality of heat exchange tubes (Fig. 5, fins are between tubes in core part 43), the heat exchange tube is fixed to the collecting pipe (Fig. 5, heat exchanger 4 has tubes within 43 connecting to 7c), an inner cavity of the heat exchange tube communicates with an inner cavity of the collecting pipe (Fig. 5), at least part of the fin is retained between two adjacent heat exchange tubes (Fig. 5, fins are between tubes in core 43), and the matrix is a matrix of at least one of the collecting pipe, the heat exchange tubes and the fin (Fig. 5, 4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta et al. (US Patent No.: 9,022,099 hereinafter “Fukuta”) in view of UMEDA et al. (US Publication No.: 2018/0134910 hereinafter “UMEDA”) and further in view of Kazama Yoshinori et al. WO 2021/140785 hereinafter “Kazama”).
With respect to claim 3, Fukuta and UMEDA teach the heat exchanger according to claim 1 as discussed above. Fukuta is silent to the corrosion inhibiting particles are insoluble or slightly soluble in water and a resistivity of the corrosion inhibiting particles is 10⁹ Ω cm to 10²² Ω cm.
Kazama teaches a resistivity of corrosion of inhibiting particles can vary depending upon a desired corrosion resistance, manufacturability, temperature coefficient of resistance and electrical resistivity (Para 0030). Therefore, the resistivity of the corrosion inhibiting particles is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the resistivity can vary, were disclosed in the prior art by Kazama, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a resistivity of 10⁹ Ω cm to 10²² Ω cm.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta et al. (US Patent No.: 9,022,099 hereinafter “Fukuta”) in view of UMEDA et al. (US Publication No.: 2018/0134910 hereinafter “UMEDA”) and further in view of Yang et al. (US Publication No.: 2020/0040244 hereinafter “Yang”).
With respect to claim 4, Fukuta and UMEDA teach the heat exchanger according to claim 1 as discussed above. Fukuta and UMEDA do not teach wherein the corrosion inhibiting particles are nanoparticles with particle sizes of 10 nm to 100 nm.
Yang teaches a corrosion inhibiting particle size of 10nm-100nm (Para 0084). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the particle size to be within 10nm-100nm as taught by Yang to have a nominal particle size that may increase heat transfer efficiency (Para 0084).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights