DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bermig et al. (PGPub US 2019/0047092).
Regarding applicants’ claims 1-3, Bermig et al. disclose an aluminum composite material having a core layer and a corrosion protection layer (first layer) exemplified by a Sample A where the core has a potential of -687mV and the protection layer comprises less than 0.01% wt. % zinc with a potential of -717mV (a second corrosion potential). The difference in potentials is 30mV, i.e. the core is 30mV less electronegative than the protection layer. Paragraph 0002, 0062, Table 1a, and Table 3.
Regarding applicants’ claims 4 and 5, in Sample A the corrosion potential of the core material is -687mV (first corrosion potential), and the corrosion potential of the protection layer (second corrosion potential) is -717mV (Table 3).
Regarding applicants’ claim 6, the protection layer is disposed on the core layer (paragraph 0062).
Regarding applicants’ claims 8-11, the core layer of sample A comprises 0.44 wt.% copper (a first concentration of a cathodic material), where the protection layer comprises 0.06 wt. % copper (a second concentration of a cathodic material). See Table 1a.
Regarding applicants’ claim 14, the layers are bonded together by roll-cladding (paragraph 0065).
Regarding applicants’ claim 23, the protection layer is provided on the core layer (step of contacting the layers, paragraph 0062) and the layers are roll-bonded (coupled, paragraph 0065).
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.
Claims 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bermig et al. (PGPub US 2019/0047092).
Regarding applicants’ claim 12, in addition to sample a, Bermig et al. disclose compositional ranges suitable for the core and protection layers where the core layer may comprise 0.7 wt.% or less copper (paragraph 0029). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a copper content that is within the disclosed range, including values which fall within applicants’ claimed range.
Regarding applicants’ claim 13, Bermig et al. disclose compositional ranges suitable for the core and protection layers where the core layer may comprise 0.7 wt.% or less copper (paragraph 0029). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a copper content that is within the disclosed range including values which fall within applicants’ claimed range.
Bermig et al. disclose that the protection layer may comprises 0.2 wt.% or less copper (paragraph 0044). While the disclosed range does not directly overlap applicants’ claimed range a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05). Given that the copper content in the protection layer is close to that claimed, where the copper content is less than in the core layer, and such that the core is 30mV less electronegative than the protection layer, the resulting aluminum clad core layer (where the protection layer has 0.2 wt.% copper) is so close to the claimed composite that obviousness is established.
Regarding applicants’ claims 15 and 16, Bermig et al. disclose compositional ranges for the core layer and the protection slayer (paragraphs 0029 and 0044) that overlap applicants’ claimed proportions. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select compositional proportions from within the disclosed ranges including values which fall within applicants’ claimed ranges.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bermig et al. (PGPub US 2019/0047092) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Benedictus et al. (PGPub US 2005/0079376).
Bermig et al. disclose an aluminum composite as discussed above with respect to claim 1 and including a brazing layer on the outside of the protection layer, but do not appear to explicitly disclose an intermediate layer positioned between the core and protection layer where the corrosion potential of the intermediate layer is between that of the core and protection layer. Benedictus et al. disclose an aluminum brazing sheet where an interlayer is placed between the core and the clad layer to achieve advantages such as reducing weight and costs and acting as a barrier layer between the core layer and the clad layer (paragraphs 0029 and 0031). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to add the interlayer of Benedictus et al. to the composite of Bermig et al. in order to provide a diffusion barrier as well as reduce weight and costs. Further one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the interlayer with a corrosion potential between that of the core layer and the protection layer as to not upset the differences in potential between the layers of Bermig et al. By placing the corrosion potential below that of the protection layer, the protection layer maintains it purpose, while not being less electronegative than the core such that the core preferentially corrodes.
Claims 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bermig et al. (PGPub US 2019/0047092) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Daaland et al. (PGPub US 2003/0102060).
Regarding applicants’ claim 17, Bermig et al. disclose an aluminum composite as discussed above with respect to claim 1, where the composite is useful in the manufacture of heat exchangers (paragraph 0002), but do not appear to explicitly disclose coupling with a fin. Daaland et al. disclose that it was known to use an AA3000 series aluminum alloy for heat exchanger fins (paragraph 0007). It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to use known materials which have been demonstrated in the art for a specific purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to form fins for the heat exchanges made from the composite of Bermig et al. from AA3000 series aluminum alloy where AA3000 series aluminum alloys have been demonstrated in the art to be suitable for the construction of fins for heat exchangers.
Regarding applicants’ claim 18, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from known AA3000 series aluminum alloys including AA3003 which is know to have a corrosion potential of -754mV (paragraph 0039).
Regarding applicants’ claim 21, a structural element is a general and broad term therefore a heat exchanger having the composite of Bermig et al. coupled to a fin would be a heat exchanger with a structural element, the fin or the core layer being a structural element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
