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 Interpretation
The claims recite “solder layer”. However, the specification recites “brazing” (See published ¶0103) as the welding technique. The term “solder layer” is interpreted as a filler metal used for brazing/welding.
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.
Claim 7 is no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “providing a heat exchange tube body”, followed by “bending the heat exchange tube body into a U-shaped heat exchange tube”, then “providing the U-shaped heat exchange tube”. Since the tube has already been “provided” previously in the claim, it is unclear if the second “providing” step is providing a new tube or referring to the already “provided” one.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20140151011A1) in view of Ichikawa (US20250187092A1) and Van Evans (US5806752A).
Claim 1
Kim teaches a method for manufacturing a heat exchanger (Figure 1, Item 100) comprising: providing a fin (20) and a heat exchange tube (10), a welding hole (20a) being arranged at the fin (Figures 5A-5C), and flow guide teeth (12) being arranged at an inner wall of the heat exchange tube (Figure 3B); both the fin (¶0026 or ¶0050) and the heat exchange tube (¶0062) being made from aluminum-based materials; passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole (Figure 2); and welding the fin and the heat exchange tube at a position of the welding hole (¶0029)(It is noted that applicant discloses brazing as a welding method in Published ¶0103.).
Kim does not explicitly disclose controlling a temperature of welding flame to be equal to or greater than 600 degrees C and controlling a temperature fluctuation of the welding flame to be below 50 degrees C. Kim does disclose that the temperature used is greater than 450 degrees C (¶0029) in the brazing method.
However, Ichikawa teaches controlling a temperature of a welding flame and controlling a temperature fluctuation of the welding flame to be below 50 degrees C. (¶0057 teaches providing a constant amount of heat to the joint through controlling the flow rate of gas injected to the burner. This is a teaching of controlling a temperature fluctuation. Ichikawa is related to brazing of a heat exchanger where the fins (¶0021) and tubes (¶0023) are made from aluminum.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known temperature controlling of the brazing torch technique of Ichikawa to the brazing method of Kim in order to control the flow rate of gas, and therefore the burner temperature to provide a constant amount of heat stabilizing the accuracy of the brazing. (See Ichikawa ¶0064)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known temperature controlling of the brazing torch technique of Ichikawa to the brazing method of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Additionally, Van Evans teaches a temperature of a welding flame to be equal to or greater than 600 degrees C. (Col. 5, Line 60 teaches a temperature of 600 degrees C for a open-air (flame) brazing process for aluminum to aluminum bonding.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known temperature of the brazing torch technique of Van Evans to the brazing method of Kim in order to reach a temperature that melts the flux, wets the surface, and removes oxides, melts the filler metal and forms the braze joint. (See Van Evans, Col. 5, Lines 60-65)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known temperature of the brazing torch technique of Van Evans to the brazing method of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 2
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising, before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube: covering an outer surface of the heat exchange tube with a solder layer. (Kim Figure 5B shows the filler metal (25) on the fin covers the outer surface of the tube once the tube is expanded and prior to welding.)
Claim 3
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising, before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube: covering an outer surface of the fin or an area to be welded at the welding hole with a solder layer. (Kim Figure 5B shows the filler metal (25) on the fin is located at the area to be welded.)
Claim 5
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans im teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein welding the fin and the heat exchange tube includes: fixing the heat exchange tube passed through the welding hole and the fin so that the heat exchange tube and the fin maintain an attitude for welding (Kim, ¶0021 teaches the expansion of the tube (10) after insertion into the fin holes to closely adhere the tube to the fins.); placing the heat exchange tube and the fin that maintain the attitude for welding inside a heating furnace (Kim, ¶0049); and welding the heat exchange tube and the fin at the position of the welding hole using automatic welding. (Applicant describes the automatic welding as being enabled by applying a solder layer on the outer surface of the fin of the heat exchanger (See published ¶0086). Based on this, Kim teaches a filler brazing material (25) applied to the surface of the fin (20) in Figures 5C-5D that is used to weld the fins and tube together in a furnace (¶0049).)
Claim 7
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein welding the fin and the heat exchange tube includes: fixing the heat exchange tube passed through the welding hole and the fin so that the heat exchange tube and the fin maintain an attitude for welding (Kim, ¶0021 teaches the expansion of the tube (10) after insertion into the fin holes to closely adhere the tube to the fins.); placing the heat exchange tube and the fin that maintain the attitude for welding inside a heating furnace (Kim, ¶0049); and welding the heat exchange tube and the fin at the position of the welding hole using automatic welding. (Applicant describes the automatic welding as being enabled by applying a solder layer on the outer surface of the fin of the heat exchanger (See published ¶0086). Based on this, Kim teaches a filler brazing material (25) applied to the surface of the fin (20) in Figures 5C-5D that is used to weld the fins and tube together in a furnace (¶0049).)
Claim 10
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein welding the fin and the heat exchange tube includes: fixing the heat exchange tube passed through the welding hole and the fin so that the heat exchange tube and the fin maintain an attitude for welding (Kim, ¶0021 teaches the expansion of the tube (10) after insertion into the fin holes to closely adhere the tube to the fins.); placing the heat exchange tube and the fin that maintain the attitude for welding inside a heating furnace (Kim, ¶0049); and welding the heat exchange tube and the fin at the position of the welding hole using automatic welding. (Applicant describes the automatic welding as being enabled by applying a solder layer on the outer surface of the fin of the heat exchanger (See published ¶0086). Based on this, Kim teaches a filler brazing material (25) applied to the surface of the fin (20) in Figures 5C-5D that is used to weld the fins and tube together in a furnace (¶0049).)
Claim 11
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising, before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube: covering an outer surface of the fin with a solder layer or covering an area to be welded at the welding hole with a solder layer. (Kim Figure 5B shows the filler metal (25) on the fin is located at the area to be welded.)
Claim 12
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein welding the fin and the heat exchange tube includes: fixing the heat exchange tube passed through the welding hole and the fin so that the heat exchange tube and the fin maintain an attitude for welding (Kim, ¶0021 teaches the expansion of the tube (10) after insertion into the fin holes to closely adhere the tube to the fins.); placing the heat exchange tube and the fin that maintain the attitude for welding inside a heating furnace (Kim, ¶0049); and welding the heat exchange tube and the fin at the position of the welding hole using automatic welding. (Applicant describes the automatic welding as being enabled by applying a solder layer on the outer surface of the fin of the heat exchanger (See published ¶0086). Based on this, Kim teaches a filler brazing material (25) applied to the surface of the fin (20) in Figures 5C-5D that is used to weld the fins and tube together in a furnace (¶0049).)
Claim 14
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein welding the fin and the heat exchange tube includes: fixing the heat exchange tube passed through the welding hole and the fin so that the heat exchange tube and the fin maintain an attitude for welding (Kim, ¶0021 teaches the expansion of the tube (10) after insertion into the fin holes to closely adhere the tube to the fins.); placing the heat exchange tube and the fin that maintain the attitude for welding inside a heating furnace (Kim, ¶0049); and welding the heat exchange tube and the fin at the position of the welding hole using automatic welding. (Applicant describes the automatic welding as being enabled by applying a solder layer on the outer surface of the fin of the heat exchanger (See published ¶0086). Based on this, Kim teaches a filler brazing material (25) applied to the surface of the fin (20) in Figures 5C-5D that is used to weld the fins and tube together in a furnace (¶0049).)
Claim 16
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein providing the heat exchange tube includes: integrally forming the heat exchange tube with the flow guide teeth on the inner wall of the heat exchange tube, the flow guide teeth being configured for heat exchange with a medium inside the heat exchange tube. (Kim Figure 3A teaches the tube has grooves (flow guide teeth) integrally formed on the inner wall. ¶0041 teaches the grooves increase heat transfer efficiency.)
Claim 17
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein providing the heat exchange tube includes: integrally forming the heat exchange tube with the flow guide teeth on the inner wall of the heat exchange tube, the flow guide teeth being configured for heat exchange with a medium inside the heat exchange tube. (Kim Figure 3A teaches the tube has grooves (flow guide teeth) integrally formed on the inner wall. ¶0041 teaches the grooves increase heat transfer efficiency.)
Claims 4, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20140151011A1) in view of Ichikawa (US20250187092A1) and Van Evans (US5806752A), further in view of Shabtay (US20200318911A1).
Claim 4
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 3.
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans does not disclose before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube and after passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole: spraying welding flux at the position of the welding hole of the fin and an area to be welded of the heat exchange tube respectively.
However, Shabtay teaches before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube and after passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole: spraying welding flux at the position of the welding hole of the fin and an area to be welded of the heat exchange tube respectively. (¶0039 teaches fluxing of the heat exchanger prior to brazing by spraying on the assembly (¶0038 teaches this is after the tubes and fins are assembled). ¶0043 teaches the spraying allows the flux to coat the surfaces of the tubes and fins within the areas of contact.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known spray flux technique of Shabtay to the heat exchanger formation method of Kim based on ¶0040 of Shabtay “The flux removes any oxide layer from the surfaces of the heat exchanger components and allows the cladding material, as the source of the braze material, to properly flow and wet the surfaces to be joined by the braze material.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known the known spray flux technique of Shabtay to the heat exchanger formation method of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the method of Kim will include a flux spray step prior to welding.
Claim 6
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 2.
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans does not disclose before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube and after passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole: spraying welding flux at the position of the welding hole of the fin and an area to be welded of the heat exchange tube respectively.
However, Shabtay teaches before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube and after passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole: spraying welding flux at the position of the welding hole of the fin and an area to be welded of the heat exchange tube respectively. (¶0039 teaches fluxing of the heat exchanger prior to brazing by spraying on the assembly (¶0038 teaches this is after the tubes and fins are assembled). ¶0043 teaches the spraying allows the flux to coat the surfaces of the tubes and fins within the areas of contact.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known spray flux technique of Shabtay to the heat exchanger formation method of Kim based on ¶0040 of Shabtay “The flux removes any oxide layer from the surfaces of the heat exchanger components and allows the cladding material, as the source of the braze material, to properly flow and wet the surfaces to be joined by the braze material.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known the known spray flux technique of Shabtay to the heat exchanger formation method of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the method of Kim will include a flux spray step prior to welding.
Claim 13
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans does not disclose before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube and after passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole: spraying welding flux at the position of the welding hole of the fin and an area to be welded of the heat exchange tube respectively.
However, Shabtay teaches before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube and after passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole: spraying welding flux at the position of the welding hole of the fin and an area to be welded of the heat exchange tube respectively. (¶0039 teaches fluxing of the heat exchanger prior to brazing by spraying on the assembly (¶0038 teaches this is after the tubes and fins are assembled). ¶0043 teaches the spraying allows the flux to coat the surfaces of the tubes and fins within the areas of contact.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known spray flux technique of Shabtay to the heat exchanger formation method of Kim based on ¶0040 of Shabtay “The flux removes any oxide layer from the surfaces of the heat exchanger components and allows the cladding material, as the source of the braze material, to properly flow and wet the surfaces to be joined by the braze material.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known the known spray flux technique of Shabtay to the heat exchanger formation method of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the method of Kim will include a flux spray step prior to welding.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20140151011A1) in view of Ichikawa (US20250187092A1) and Van Evans (US5806752A), further in view of Martin (US20070221365A1).
Claim 8
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: processing the heat exchange tube including: providing a heat exchange tube body. (Kim, Figure 2)
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans does not explicitly disclose bending the heat exchange tube body into a U-shaped heat exchange tube. Kim does disclose the tube has a U-shaped bend, but does not disclose the bending step. (Figure 1)
However, Martin teaches bending a heat exchange tube into a U-shaped heat exchange tube. (Figure 7, Figure 27 and ¶0064)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known heat exchanger tube bending technique of Martin to the U shaped tube of Kim in order to provide a heat exchanger tube with a tight return bend that is wrinkle free. (Martin ¶0013)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known the known U bend technique of Martin to the heat exchanger formation method of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the U bend shape of the tube of Kim will be formed by bending the tube.
Claims 1, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordlien (US20140298653A1) in view of Kim (US20140151011A1), Ichikawa (US20250187092A1) and Van Evans (US5806752A).
Claim 1
Nordlien teaches a method for manufacturing a heat exchanger (Figure 1) comprising: providing a fin (6) and a heat exchange tube (2), a welding hole (Figure 2) being arranged at the fin, passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole (Figure 2); and welding the fin and the heat exchange tube at a position of the welding hole. (¶0038)(It is noted that applicant discloses brazing as a welding method in Published ¶0103.)
Nordlien does not disclose flow guide teeth being arranged at an inner wall of the heat exchange tube.
However, Kim teaches flow guide teeth (12) being arranged at an inner wall of the heat exchange tube (Figure 3B).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known forming of interior projections/grooves technique of Kim to the tubes of Nordlien in order to improve heat transfer efficiency. (See Kim ¶0024)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known forming of interior projections/grooves technique of Kim to the tubes of Nordlien because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the tubes of Nordlien will have interior flow guide teeth.
Nordlien does not explicitly disclose controlling a temperature of welding flame to be equal to or greater than 600 degrees C and controlling a temperature fluctuation of the welding flame to be below 50 degrees C.
However, Ichikawa teaches controlling a temperature of a welding flame and controlling a temperature fluctuation of the welding flame to be below 50 degrees C. (¶0057 teaches providing a constant amount of heat to the joint through controlling the flow rate of gas injected to the burner. This is a teaching of controlling a temperature fluctuation. Ichikawa is related to brazing of a heat exchanger where the fins (¶0021) and tubes (¶0023) are made from aluminum.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known temperature controlling of the brazing torch technique of Ichikawa to the brazing method of Nordlien in order to control the flow rate of gas, and therefore the burner temperature to provide a constant amount of heat stabilizing the accuracy of the brazing. (See Ichikawa ¶0064)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known temperature controlling of the brazing torch technique of Ichikawa to the brazing method of Nordlien because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Additionally, Van Evans teaches a temperature of a welding flame to be equal to or greater than 600 degrees C. (Col. 5, Line 60 teaches a temperature of 600 degrees C for a open-air (flame) brazing process for aluminum to aluminum bonding.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known temperature of the brazing torch technique of Van Evans to the brazing method of Nordlien in order to reach a temperature that melts the flux, wets the surface, and removes oxides, melts the filler metal and forms the braze joint. (See Van Evans, Col. 5, Lines 60-65)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known temperature of the brazing torch technique of Van Evans to the brazing method of Nordlien because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 2
Nordlien in view of Kim, Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising, before welding the fin and the heat exchange tube: covering an outer surface of the heat exchange tube with a solder layer. (Nordlien ¶0038-0042 teach the tubes are clad with a filler material for brazing.)
Claim 9
Nordlien in view of Kim, Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein covering the outer surface of the heat exchange tube includes: soaking the outer surface of the heat exchange tube in a solder solution to form the solder layer on the outer surface of the heat exchange tube. (Nordlien ¶0087 teaches the tubes can be dip coated, which is a soaking step.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20140151011A1) in view of Ichikawa (US20250187092A1) and Van Evans (US5806752A), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Martin (US20070221365A1) and Hasegawa (JPS60255262A)(text citations from attached Espacenet generated translation).
Claim 20
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein providing the heat exchange tube includes: providing a heat exchange tube body (10); and the flow guide teeth being arranged at an inner wall of the heat exchange tube (Figure 3A); and providing the heat exchange tube (10); the method further comprising: wherein: passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole includes passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole (Figure 2); and welding the fin and the heat exchange tube at the position of the welding hole includes welding the fin and the heat exchange tube at the position of the welding hole. (¶0029)
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans does not explicitly disclose bending the heat exchange tube body into a U-shaped heat exchange tube. Kim does disclose the tube has a U-shaped bend, but does not disclose the bending step. (Figure 1)
However, Martin teaches bending a heat exchange tube into a U-shaped heat exchange tube. (Figure 7, Figure 27 and ¶0064)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known heat exchanger tube bending technique of Martin to the U shaped tube of Kim in order to provide a heat exchanger tube with a tight return bend that is wrinkle free. (Martin ¶0013)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known the known U bend technique of Martin to the heat exchanger formation method of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the U bend shape of the tube of Kim will be formed by bending the tube.
Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans does not explicitly disclose soaking the U-shaped heat exchange tube in a solder solution to form a solder layer on an outer surface of the U-shaped heat exchange tube.
However, Hasegawa teaches soaking the U-shaped heat exchange tube (The tube (1) is made from aluminum (Line 42)) in a solder solution to form a solder layer on an outer surface of the U-shaped heat exchange tube. (Lines 44-45 teaches dip coating of a brazing agent/material on the outer surface of the tube before OR after forming the U shape.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known dip coating technique of Hasegawa to the U shaped tube of Kim in order to provide the brazing agent to the entire curve of the U-tube so that curved parts where corrosion is likely to occur can be treated. (See Hasegawa Lines 352-353)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known the known dip coating technique of Hasegawa to the U shaped tube of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20140151011A1) in view of Martin (US20070221365A1) and Hasegawa (JPS60255262A)(text citations from attached Espacenet generated translation).
Claim 21
Kim teaches a method for manufacturing a heat exchanger (Figure 1, Item 100) comprising: providing a fin (20), a welding hole (20a) being arranged at the fin; providing a heat exchange tube body (10), both the fin and the heat exchange tube body being made of aluminum-based materials (¶0026, ¶0050 and ¶0062); flow guide teeth being arranged at an inner wall of the heat exchange tube; forming a solder layer on an outer surface of the tube (Figure 5B shows the filler metal (25) on the fin covers the outer surface of the tube once the tube is expanded and prior to welding.); passing the heat exchange tube through the welding hole (Figure 2); and welding the fin and the U-shaped heat exchange tube at a position of the welding hole. (¶0029)(It is noted that applicant discloses brazing as a welding method in Published ¶0103.).
Kim does not explicitly disclose bending the heat exchange tube body into a U-shaped heat exchange tube. Kim does disclose the tube has a U-shaped bend, but does not disclose the bending step. (Figure 1)
However, Martin teaches bending a heat exchange tube into a U-shaped heat exchange tube. (Figure 7, Figure 27 and ¶0064)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known heat exchanger tube bending technique of Martin to the U shaped tube of Kim in order to provide a heat exchanger tube with a tight return bend that is wrinkle free. (Martin ¶0013)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known the known U bend technique of Martin to the heat exchanger formation method of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the U bend shape of the tube of Kim will be formed by bending the tube.
Kim does not explicitly disclose soaking the U-shaped heat exchange tube in a solder solution to form a solder layer on an outer surface of the U-shaped heat exchange tube.
However, Hasegawa teaches soaking the U-shaped heat exchange tube (The tube (1) is made from aluminum (Line 42)) in a solder solution to form a solder layer on an outer surface of the U-shaped heat exchange tube. (Lines 44-45 teaches dip coating of a brazing agent/material on the outer surface of the tube before OR after forming the U shape.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known dip coating technique of Hasegawa to the U shaped tube of Kim in order to provide the brazing agent to the entire curve of the U-tube so that curved parts where corrosion is likely to occur can be treated. (See Hasegawa Lines 352-353)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known the known dip coating technique of Hasegawa to the U shaped tube of Kim because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim in view of Ichikawa and Van Evans.
Kim does not disclose the newly added limitations to claim 1. However, Ichikawa and Van Evans teach these limitations as well as motivations to combine with Kim
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20250187092A1
2022-08-26
¶0057 teaches keeping the heat constant from the welding torch during the brazing of the joint in order to improve the accuracy of brazing of the joint.
US5732767A
1996-01-24
Brazing of an aluminum tube to an aluminum fin at 1120F or 604 C with a filler/solder layer included.
US20170036286A1
2015-04-15
¶0012-0013 teach flame brazing at 610 to 625 C. ¶0081 teaches the use of this technique with aluminum alloys.
US20120273553A1
2012-05-25
¶0024 teaches the burner assemblies (206, 208) are used to heat the aluminum to 600 C. ¶0025 teaches the technique is for joining tubes for a heat exchanger.
US20130228613A1
2011-10-21
¶0004 teaches the invention pertains to joining two aluminum workpieces using a flame welding. ¶0015 and ¶0018 teaches the method includes maintaining a temperature of the joint to prevent overheating of the joint.
US20140014648A1
2013-05-09
¶0032-0034 teach a controller that controls the brazing temperature during a joining process for heat exchanger tubes.
US5806752A
1996-12-04
Col. 3, Lines 50-65 teach the block and tubes are made from aluminum. Col. 5, Lines 30-31 teach the use of flame brazing at 600C for the joining. The temperature is raised to 600C and held there for 1-2 minutes (Col. 5, Lines 55-60). Holding the temperature is maintaining the temperature. The brazing occurs in a furnace (Col. 5, Line 64)
US20100012308A1
2009-07-09
¶0006 teaches the brazing of aluminum tubes to fins at 600C.
US20090308500A1
2007-06-08
¶0062 teaches that brazing of aluminum heat exchangers is done at 600C
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 Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
