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 4-6, 10, and 14 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.
In claims 4-6 it is unclear what the applicant means by brazing degree, i.e. is the degree drawn to temperature, angle, and/or quality? In addition, the term “brazing degree” in claims 4-6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “brazing degree” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The criteria for different brazing degrees are unclear and relative to one’s opinion. For purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo et al. (JP-2010-172943A) (hereafter Kondo).
With respect to claim 1, Kondo teaches a method for manufacturing a heat exchanger (3) including a plurality of fins (31) arranged in a thickness direction and a plurality of heat transfer tubes (U-shaped pipes 32) penetrating the plurality of fins, the heat transfer tubes being made of aluminum (paragraphs 12-13), the method comprising: connecting a first open end portion of open end portions (32a) of the heat transfer tubes protruding from the fins, and a first connection pipe made of aluminum (paragraphs 12-13); and first brazing a first joint (4) between the first open end portion and the first connection pipe by heating the first joint with a first burner that is movable around (broadest reasonable interpretation) the first joint (figures 1-3; and paragraphs 11, 13-14, and 19-22).
With respect to claim 17, Kondo teaches wherein in the first brazing, the first burner includes a plurality of first burners, the first joint includes a plurality of first joints, and the plurality of first joints are brazed simultaneously by the plurality of burners (figures 1-3; and paragraphs 6 and 27).
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.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawasaki (JP-2009-148807A).
With respect to claims 2-3, Kondo does not teach wherein in the first brazing, a flow rate of a gas used to emit heating flame from the first burner is controlled based on a temperature of the first burner.
However, Kawasaki teaches wherein in the first brazing, a flow rate of a gas used to emit heating flame from the first burner is controlled based on a temperature of the first burner (machine translation of the description; and claim 1).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the flow rate control of Kawasaki in the process of Kondo in order to control the temperature of the flame during brazing.
With respect to claim 3, Kondo and Kawasaki do not explicitly teach wherein the gas is a mixed gas of a combustion gas and air, and the air has an oxygen concentration of 95% or more. However, Kawasaki teaches that the amount of oxygen controls the temperature of the flame (machine translation of the description). Accordingly, Kawasaki establishes that the amount of oxygen is a result effective variable.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an oxygen concentration of 95% or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value or a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The artisan would have been motivated to us oxygen concentration of 95% or more by the reasoned expectation of forming an oxidizing flame having he desired temperature.
With respect to claims 4-6, Kawasaki teaches wherein in the first brazing, a flow rate of a gas used to emit heating flame from the first burner is controlled based on a brazing degree (broadest reasonable interpretation) of the first joint (paragraphs 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-24).
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuroda (JP-H06-297141A).
With respect to claim 11, Kondo teaches wherein in the first brazing, the heat exchanger is fixed by a clamp mechanism (jig 2, 2A, 2B) (figures 1-2; and the machine translation of the description), but does not teach a position of the first burner is adjusted based on an amount of deviation of the heat exchanger from a predetermined reference position.
However, Kuroda teaches a position of the first burner is adjusted based on an amount of deviation (DELTA) of the heat exchanger (joint 4 of the heat exchanger) from a predetermined reference position (reference position) (machine translation of the description).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the position correction of Kuroda in the process of Kondo in order to ensure that the heat exchanger is heated in the desired location for brazing.
With respect to claim 16, Kondo teaches wherein part of the heat exchanger that the clamp mechanism holds is adjusted based on a type of the heat exchanger (the brazing jig 2 is mounted in a predetermined position in advance according to the model of the heat exchanger 3 or the like) (machine translation of the description).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo and Kawasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuroda (JP-H06-297141A).
With respect to claims 12-14, Kondo teaches wherein in the first brazing, the heat exchanger is fixed by a clamp mechanism (jig 2, 2A, 2B) (figures 1-2; and the machine translation of the description), but does not teach a position of the first burner is adjusted based on an amount of deviation of the heat exchanger from a predetermined reference position.
However, Kuroda teaches a position of the first burner is adjusted based on an amount of deviation (DELTA) of the heat exchanger (joint 4 of the heat exchanger) from a predetermined reference position (reference position) (machine translation of the description).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the position correction of Kuroda in the collective process of Kondo and Kawasaki in order to ensure that the heat exchanger is heated in the desired location for brazing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 15 are 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.
Claim 10 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.
Although it is known in the art to form a heat exchanger with pipes having different heat capacities the prior art of record does not teach or suggest either alone or in combination first brazing a first joint between the first open end portion and the first connection pipe by heating the first joint with a first burner that is movable around the first joint; and second brazing a second joint between the second open end portion and the second connection pipe made of aluminum and having a lower heat capacity than the first connection pipe by heating the second joint with a second burner that is stationary, the second brazing being performed after the first brazing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735