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 .
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 7-8 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.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if the radial pressure to the joint assembly is what causes the deformation or if this is a different step separate from the deformation step. For the purpose of examination this radial pressure is what is causing the deformation.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moebius (4,026,006A) in view of Nagahara et al. (WO2023/106223A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moebius discloses a method of joining dissimilar material pipes comprising: applying a metal filler 13 to an end of a first pipe 1; press-inserting the end of the first pipe 1 into a second pipe 2; and plastically deforming and joining a plastic deformation portion where the first pipe and the second pipe overlap in a joint assembly (figure 4, 7), wherein the first pipe is inserted to the second pipe, wherein an outer diameter surface of the second pipe is pressed during the plastically deforming and joining, and the first pipe and the second pipe are plastically deformed together (figures 4, 7, column 3 line 2 to column 4 line 51).
Moebius discloses that the filler can be solder or any other meltable bonding agent (column 3 line 60 to column 4 line 11). Moebius does not specifically disclose that the bonding material is braze or press-inserting with the brazing metal filler applied. However, However, Nagahara discloses brazing two pipes together where the braze 61 is applied to the end of first pipe outer peripheral surface 72 and the first pipe is press fit into the second pipe. (see description of figure 8, figure 8). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to apply the braze to the first pipe and to press-fit the pipes together (plastic deformation) because brazing material has a higher working temperature and would allow the pipes to be used in higher temperature applications. Applying the braze prior to insertion would also be obvious because it allows the braze to easily be positioned at the required position on the pipe. Once its inserted, applying the braze would be more difficult.
Regarding claim 2, Moebius discloses that the first pipe and the second pipe are made of dissimilar materials (column 2 lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 3, Moebius the first pipe and the second pipe are contactless (figure 4, 7).
Regarding claim 4, Moebius discloses heat-treating the plastic deformation portion in the joint assembly and melting the brazing metal filler (column 3 line 60 to column 4 line 11).
Regarding claim 5, Moebius discloses the applying of the brazing metal filler covers a longitudinal length corresponding to a range between 2/5 and 3/5 of a length of the plastic deformation portion (figures 4, 7, column 3 line 2 to column 4 line 51).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moebius (4,026,006A) in view of Nagahara et al. (WO2023/106223A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Asama et al. (2021/0370427A1).
Regarding claim 6, Moebius does not disclose that the brazing metal filler has an alloy composition with a melting point of 450-550°C and the melting of the brazing metal filler includes heat treatment of the plastic deformation portion at a temperature of 450-550°C. Asama discloses a method of joining dissimilar material pipes (steel pipe and aluminum pipe) comprising: applying a brazing metal filler wherein the first pipe is inserted to the second pipe (paragraphs 0081-0083, figure 6). Asama discloses heating to a temperature less than 640 C to melt the braze (paragraph 0033). This falls within the range of 450-550 C of the claimed invention. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known braze with a known brazing temperature that would be suitable for forming the joint without overheating the workpieces that could cause heat damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested wherein the joining comprises: placing the joint assembly between multiple jigs in a rotary swaging device; and operating the rotary swaging device to allow the jig to apply radial pressure (deformation) to the joint assembly.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art was not found wherein the first pipe is an aluminum (Al) pipe on a heat exchanger side in a liquid hydrogen system, and the second pipe is a steel pipe on a hydrogen storage tank side in the liquid hydrogen system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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 at 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 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights