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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are pending.
Claims 4 and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 6-8, 10 and 13 are original.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 11-12 and 15 are previously presented.
Claims 17-20 are new.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected herein.
Claim 18 is objected to herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kooriyama and Herbst disclose different methods for measuring grain size. Remarks/Arguments, pages 8-9. This argument is not persuasive.
Regardless of how the grain size is measured, Kooriyama in view of Herbst (as detailed more fully in the rejections below) discloses a grain size of about 300 µm. Indeed, Kooriyama discloses that the copper circuit part (3) has a crystal grain size of “about 110 μm to 130 μm.” Paragraph [0033]. Kooriyama also discloses that the grain size of the copper circuit part “can be made larger by annealing.” Paragraph [0038]. Additionally, Herbst also disclose the grain size of the copper is preferably in the range of 10 μm to 300 μm, +/- 10% (i.e., up to 330 μm). See, e.g., paragraph [0053].
In view of crystal grain sizes disclosed by Kooriyama in view of Herbst, a reasonable distribution of crystals having grain sizes around 300 µm, and a reasonable arrangement and/or orientation (i.e., random, pseudo-random or otherwise) of such grains, an “arbitrary” line (drawn as claimed) inevitably exists that crosses two of the copper crystal grains (i.e., the claimed plurality of crystal grains) which would satisfy the relevant claimed limitations, i.e., that an average of a plurality of distances in a second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is not more than 300 µm, a minimum value of the plurality of distances is not less than 131 µm, and a difference between a maximum value of the plurality of distances and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is not more than 220 μm.
For example, consider the case in which the crystal grain sizes of the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama after joining are about 300 µm as taught by Herbst. An “arbitrary” line can be drawn as claimed which essentially bisects two copper grains having a diameter and/or width of about 300 µm. In this case, the average of a plurality of distances in the second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is about 150 µm (i.e., not more than 300 µm as claimed), and a minimum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm (i.e., not less than 131 µm as claimed). Additionally, a maximum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm, and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm. Accordingly, the difference is around 0 µm (i.e., not more than 220 µm as claimed).
Applicant also argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, during brazing, components of the brazing material diffuse into the copper plate, which makes the copper crystal grains larger” and that “even if the surface copper crystal grain size disclosed in Kooriyama may have been within the range of 10-300 (+10%) µm disclosed in Herbst, the grain size near the brazed interface of the copper circuit part may grow to be larger than that of the interior due to diffusion of the brazing material.” Remarks/ Arguments, pages 9-10. This argument is not persuasive.
First, the grain size disclosed by Kooriyama is “about 110 μm to 130 μm.” Paragraph [0033]. Kooriyama recognizes that this size may be increased by annealing. See, e.g., Paragraph [0038]. Moreover, Herbst disclose the grain size of the copper is preferably in the range of 10 μm to 300 μm, +/- 10% (i.e., up to 330 μm). See, e.g., paragraph [0053]. Accordingly, brazing or annealing is expected to bring the crystal grain size of Kooriyama up from about 110 μm to 130 μm to about 300 μm as taught by Herbst.
Second, nothing in the claims requires that the plurality of grains be selected from any particular location within the cooper circuit part. Accordingly, the grains in Kooriyama and/or Herbst to be read on the claimed plurality of grains can be those grains in an interior portion, an exterior portion, near the brazed surface or away from the brazed surface of the cooper circuit part or from some combination thereof. In short, given the combined teachings of Kooriyama and Herbst as to grain size, along with a reasonable distribution, arrangement and/or orientation (i.e., random, pseudo-random or otherwise) of such grains, it is inevitable that an “arbitrary” line can be drawn as claimed which essentially bisects two grains having a diameter and/or width of about 300 μm. When so constituted, the relevant limitations regarding the claimed distances are met.
Additionally, insomuch as claim 1 has not been found allowable, the dependence of claims 2, 3, 5-13 and 15 from claim 1 is not dispositive with respect to the allowability of the such claims. Further, Applicant has not argued with any particularity how any additional limitations recited in any of the dependent claims 2, 3, 5-13 and 15 further patentably distinguishes such dependent claims over the applied prior art, nor has Applicant specifically argued how any rejection of any of the dependent claims 2, 3, 5-13 and 15 is additionally in error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3, 5-11, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kooriyama (US 20170352607 A1) in view of Herbst (US 20190023619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kooriyama discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 3):
A ceramic copper circuit board (1), comprising:
a ceramic substrate (2); and
a copper circuit part (3) located on the ceramic substrate (2), the copper circuit part (3) having a first surface (bottom surface) and a second surface (top surface) directly opposed to each other in a thickness direction (Z) of the ceramic copper circuit board (1); and
a first bonding layer (11) provided between the ceramic substrate (2) and the copper circuit part (2), and including copper (paragraphs [0057]),
wherein the first surface (bottom surface) of the copper circuit part (3) is directly in contact with the first bonding layer (11) and consists of a single copper plate (3), and
wherein the second surface (top surface) of the copper circuit part (3) is entirely exposed.
Kooriyama further discloses:
an arbitrary line (e.g., an arbitrary vertical line) crossing a plurality of copper crystal grains drawn along a first direction (Z) at a cross section (see, e.g., FIG. 3) of the copper circuit part (3), and
a second direction (X),
wherein the first direction (Z) is perpendicular to a surface (top surface) of the ceramic substrate (2),
wherein the cross section (see, e.g., FIG. 3) is parallel to the first direction (Z), and
wherein the second direction (X) is perpendicular to the first direction (Z).
Kooriyama also discloses that the copper circuit part (3) has a crystal grain size of “about 110 μm to 130 μm.” Paragraph [0033]. Additionally, Kooriyama discloses that the grain size of the copper circuit part “can be made larger by annealing.” Paragraph [0038].
Kooriyama may not explicitly disclose:
an average of a plurality of distances in a second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is not more than 300 μm, a minimum value of the plurality of distances is not less than 131 μm, and a difference between a maximum value of the plurality of distances and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is not more than 220 μm.
However, in analogous art, Herbst discloses a ceramic copper circuit board having a copper circuit part (2) located on a ceramic substrate (1), the copper circuit part (2) having a first surface (bottom surface) and a second surface (top surface) directly opposed to each other in a thickness direction (vertical direction) of the ceramic copper circuit board, wherein the second surface (top surface) of the copper circuit part (2) is entirely exposed. See, e.g., FIG. 1. Herbst further discloses joining the copper circuit part (2) to the ceramic substrate (1) via a metal brazing. See paragraph [0052]. Herbst also disclose the grain sizes of the copper are preferably in the range of 10 μm to 300 μm, +/- 10% (i.e., up to 330 μm). See, e.g., paragraph [0053].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the copper crystal grain sizes of the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama to about 300 µm as taught by Herbst according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to promote good adhesion of the copper to the ceramic substrate. See, e.g., paragraph [0053] of Herbst. Moreover, Kooriyama already explicitly discloses that the copper circuit part (3) may have a crystal grain size of “about 110 μm to 130 μm” (see paragraph [0033]) and recognizes that the grain size of the copper circuit part “can be made larger by annealing” (see paragraph [0038]).
Additionally, the conclusion of obviousness is supported by the rational of “Obvious to Try.” See MPEP §2143(I)(E). In particular, it is found that: (1) at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art (e.g., Herbst recognized the need in the art to provide a copper part that “displays good adhesion to a ceramic substrate even when the copper-ceramic composite is subjected to many temperature change stresses” – see, e.g., paragraph [0053]); (2) there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem (i.e., Herbst identifies a finite number of potential solution including making the copper crystal grain size be in the range of 10 μm to 300 μm, +/- 10%); and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g., Herbst discloses that having copper crystal grain sizes in the disclosed range in fact achieved success at solving the problem and/or alleviating the need and Kooriyama discloses that increasing copper crystal grain size can be achieved by annealing). One of ordinary skill in the art could have readily pursued varying the copper crystal grain size of the copper circuit part within the finite range disclosed by Herbst by applying annealing as taught by Kooriyama with a reasonable expectation of success.
In view of crystal grain sizes disclosed by Kooriyama in view of Herbst, a reasonable distribution of crystals having grain sizes around 300 µm, and a reasonable arrangement and/or orientation (i.e., random, pseudo-random or otherwise) of such grains, an arbitrary line (drawn as claimed – i.e., in the Z direction of Kooriyama) inevitably exists that crosses a plurality (e.g., two) of the copper crystal grains in the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama (i.e., as modified according to the teachings of Herbst as detailed herein) which would satisfy the relevant claimed limitations, i.e., that an average of a plurality of distances in a second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is not more than 300 µm, a minimum value of the plurality of distances is not less than 131 µm and a difference between a maximum value of the plurality of distances and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is not more than 220 μm.
For example, consider the case in which the crystal grain size of the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama after joining is about 300 µm as taught by Herbst. An arbitrary line can be drawn as claimed which essentially bisects two copper grains (e.g., that are equated to the claimed plurality of copper crystal grains) having a diameter and/or width in the X-direction of about 300 µm. In this case, the average of a plurality of distances in the second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is about 150 µm, i.e., not more than 300 µm, a minimum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm, i.e., not less than 131 µm. Additionally, a maximum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm, and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm. Accordingly, the difference is around 0 µm, i.e., “not more than 220 µm,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama in view of Herbst further discloses, wherein a maximum value of the plurality of distances is not more than 400 µm.
Note, given the arbitrary line discussed in the case above with regard to claim 1, a maximum value of the plurality of distances would be about 150 µm, i.e., “not more than 400 µm,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama in view of Herbst further discloses, wherein the minimum value of the plurality of distances is not more than 200 µm.
Note, given the arbitrary line discussed in the case above with regard to claim 1, the minimum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm, i.e., “not more than 200 µm,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama in view of Herbst further discloses, wherein an outer edge of each of the plurality of copper crystal grains includes a first edge (upper edge) and a second edge (lower edge) crossing the line, and
wherein an average of lengths in the first direction (Z) between the first edge (upper edge) and the second edge (lower edge) of each of the plurality of copper crystal grains is not more than 300 µm.
Note, given the arbitrary line discussed in the case above with regard to claim 1, a length of the line through the center of the first copper crystal grain is about 300 µm and a length of the line through the center of the second copper crystal is about 300 µm. Accordingly, the average of these lengths is about 300 µm, i.e., “not more than 300 µm,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 5 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 5.
Kooriyama in view of Herbst further discloses, wherein a maximum value of a plurality of the lengths is not more than 400 µm.
Note, given the arbitrary line discussed in the case above with regard to claim 1, a maximum value of the plurality of lengths is about 300 µm, i.e., “not more than 400 µm,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 5 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 5.
Kooriyama in view of Herbst further discloses, wherein a minimum value of a plurality of the lengths is not more than 200 µm.
In view of the range of crystal grain sizes disclosed by Kooriyama in view of Herbst, a reasonable distribution of crystal grain sizes, and a reasonable arrangement and/or orientation (i.e., random, pseudo-random or otherwise) of such grains, an arbitrary line (drawn as claimed – i.e., in the Z direction of Kooriyama) inevitably exists that crosses a plurality (e.g., two) of the copper crystal grains in the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama (i.e., as modified according to the teachings of Herbst as detailed herein), which would satisfy the relevant claimed limitations, i.e., that an average of a plurality of distances in a second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is not more than 300 µm, a minimum value of the plurality of distances is not less than 131 µm, a difference between a maximum value of the plurality of distances and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is not more than 220 μm and a minimum value of a plurality of the lengths as claimed is not more than 200 µm.
For example, consider the case in which the crystal grain size of the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama after joining is about 300 µm as taught by Herbst. An arbitrary line can be drawn as claimed which essentially bisects a first copper grain (e.g., that is equated to one of the claimed plurality of copper crystal grains) having a diameter of about 300 µm and which crosses a second copper grain (e.g., that is equated to another one of the claimed plurality of copper crystal grains) having a diameter of about 300 µm, wherein the line crosses the second copper grain very near and/or substantially adjacent to an outer circumference of the second copper grain. In this case, the distance (i.e., in the X-direction of Kooriyama – corresponding to the claimed second direction) between the line and the farthest edge of the first copper grain is about 150 µm and the distance (i.e., in the X-direction of Kooriyama – corresponding to the claimed second direction) between the line and the farthest edge of the second copper grain is just slightly less than about 300 µm. Accordingly, the average of a plurality of distances in the second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is just slightly less than about 225 µm, i.e., not more than 300 µm, and a minimum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm, i.e., not less than 131 µm. Additionally, a difference between a maximum value (i.e., just slightly less than about 300 µm) of the plurality of distances and the minimum value (i.e., about 150 µm) of the plurality of distances is just slightly less than 150 µm, i.e., not more than 220 μm. Moreover, a length as claimed (i.e., in the Z-direction of Kooriyama – equated with the claimed first direction) corresponding to the first copper gain is about 300 µm and a length as claimed (i.e., in the Z-direction of Kooriyama – equated with the claimed first direction) corresponding to second copper gain is just slightly more than about 0 µm. Accordingly, a minimum value of a plurality of the lengths is not more than 200 µm.
Regarding claim 8, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 5 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 5.
Kooriyama in view of Herbst further discloses, wherein a difference between a maximum value of a plurality of the lengths and a minimum value of the plurality of lengths is not more than 220 µm.
Note, given the arbitrary line discussed in the case above with regard to claim 1, a maximum value of the plurality of lengths is about 300 µm and the minimum value of the plurality of lengths is about 300 µm. Accordingly, the difference is about 0 µm, i.e., “not more than 220 µm,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama further discloses, wherein the ceramic substrate (2) is an aluminum oxide substrate (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama further discloses, wherein a thickness in the first direction (Z) of the ceramic substrate (2) is not more than 0.7 mm (paragraphs [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama further discloses, wherein the first bonding layer (11) further includes Ti (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 16, Kooriyama discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 2 and 4):
A semiconductor device (1), comprising:
a ceramic substrate (2); and
a copper circuit part (3) located on the ceramic substrate (2);
a first bonding layer (11) provided between the ceramic substrate (2) and the copper circuit part (2), and including copper (paragraphs [0057]),
a semiconductor element (5) mounted on the copper circuit part (3); and
a second bonding layer (6) between the semiconductor element (5) and the copper circuit part (3), and including Ag (paragraph [0045]),
wherein the copper circuit part (3) is directly in contact with the first and second bonding layers (11, 6) and consists of a single copper plate (3).
Kooriyama further discloses:
an arbitrary line (e.g., an arbitrary vertical line) crossing a plurality of copper crystal grains drawn along a first direction (Z) at a cross section (see, e.g., FIGS. 2 and 4) of the copper circuit part (3), and
a second direction (X),
wherein the first direction (Z) is perpendicular to a surface (top surface) of the ceramic substrate (2),
wherein the cross section (see, e.g., FIGS. 2 and 4) is parallel to the first direction (Z), and
wherein the second direction (X) is perpendicular to the first direction (Z).
While Kooriyama, in the embodiment of FIG. 4, does not explicitly show the second bonding layer (6) as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 2, it would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the second bonding layer (6) of Kooriyama as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 2 in the embodiment of FIG. 4 of Kooriyama, according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to provide a good, stable and/or reliable bond between the semiconductor element (5) and the copper circuit part (3).
Kooriyama also discloses that the copper circuit part (3) has a crystal grain size of “about 110 μm to 130 μm.” Paragraph [0033]. Additionally, Kooriyama discloses that the grain size of the copper circuit part “can be made larger by annealing.” Paragraph [0038].
Kooriyama may not explicitly disclose:
an average of a plurality of distances in a second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is not more than 300 μm, a minimum value of the plurality of distances is not less than 131 μm, and a difference between a maximum value of the plurality of distances and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is not more than 220 μm.
However, in analogous art, Herbst discloses a ceramic copper circuit board having a copper circuit part (2) located on a ceramic substrate (1). See, e.g., FIG. 1. Herbst further discloses joining the copper circuit part (2) to the ceramic substrate (1) via a metal brazing. See paragraph [0052]. Herbst also disclose the grain sizes of the copper are preferably in the range of 10 μm to 300 μm, +/- 10% (i.e., up to 330 μm). See, e.g., paragraph [0053].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the copper crystal grain sizes of the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama to about 300 µm as taught by Herbst according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to promote good adhesion of the copper to the ceramic substrate. See, e.g., paragraph [0053] of Herbst. Moreover, Kooriyama already explicitly discloses that the copper circuit part (3) may have a crystal grain size of “about 110 μm to 130 μm” (see paragraph [0033]) and recognizes that the grain size of the copper circuit part “can be made larger by annealing” (see paragraph [0038]).
Additionally, the conclusion of obviousness is supported by the rational of “Obvious to Try.” See MPEP §2143(I)(E). In particular, it is found that: (1) at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art (e.g., Herbst recognized the need in the art to provide a copper part that “displays good adhesion to a ceramic substrate even when the copper-ceramic composite is subjected to many temperature change stresses” – see, e.g., paragraph [0053]); (2) there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem (i.e., Herbst identifies a finite number of potential solution including making the copper crystal grain size be in the range of 10 μm to 300 μm, +/- 10%); and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g., Herbst discloses that having copper crystal grain sizes in the disclosed range in fact achieved success at solving the problem and/or alleviating the need and Kooriyama discloses that increasing copper crystal grain size can be achieved by annealing). One of ordinary skill in the art could have readily pursued varying the copper crystal grain size of the copper circuit part within the finite range disclosed by Herbst by applying annealing as taught by Kooriyama with a reasonable expectation of success.
In view of crystal grain sizes disclosed by Kooriyama in view of Herbst, a reasonable distribution of crystals having grain sizes around 300 µm, and a reasonable arrangement and/or orientation (i.e., random, pseudo-random or otherwise) of such grains, an arbitrary line (drawn as claimed – i.e., in the Z direction of Kooriyama) inevitably exists that crosses a plurality (e.g., two) of the copper crystal grains in the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama (i.e., as modified according to the teachings of Herbst as detailed herein) which would satisfy the relevant claimed limitations, i.e., that an average of a plurality of distances in a second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is not more than 300 µm, a minimum value of the plurality of distances is not less than 131 µm and a difference between a maximum value of the plurality of distances and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is not more than 220 μm.
For example, consider the case in which the crystal grain size of the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama after joining is about 300 µm as taught by Herbst. An arbitrary line can be drawn as claimed which essentially bisects two copper grains (e.g., that are equated to the claimed plurality of copper crystal grains) having a diameter and/or width in the X-direction of about 300 µm. In this case, the average of a plurality of distances in the second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is about 150 µm, i.e., not more than 300 µm, a minimum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm, i.e., not less than 131 µm. Additionally, a maximum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm, and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm. Accordingly, the difference is around 0 µm, i.e., “not more than 220 µm,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama in view of Herbst further discloses, wherein each of the plurality of distances in not more than 300 µm.
Note, given the arbitrary line discussed in the case above with regard to claim 1, each of the plurality of distance is about 150 µm, i.e., “not more than 300 µm,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 5 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 5.
Kooriyama in view of Herbst further discloses, wherein each of the plurality of lengths is not more than 300 µm.
Note, given the arbitrary line discussed in the case above with regard to claim 1, each of the plurality of lengths is about 300 µm, i.e., “not more than 300 µm,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 19 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 19.
Kooriyama in view of Herbst further discloses, wherein each of the plurality of lengths is not less than 70 µm.
In view of crystal grain sizes disclosed by Kooriyama in view of Herbst, a reasonable distribution of crystals having grain sizes around 300 µm, and a reasonable arrangement and/or orientation (i.e., random, pseudo-random or otherwise) of such grains, an arbitrary line (drawn as claimed – i.e., in the Z direction of Kooriyama) inevitably exists that crosses a plurality (e.g., two) of the copper crystal grains in the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama (i.e., as modified according to the teachings of Herbst as detailed herein) which would satisfy the relevant claimed limitations of claims 1, 5, 19 and 20, i.e., that an average of a plurality of distances in a second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is not more than 300 µm, a minimum value of the plurality of distances is not less than 131 µm, a difference between a maximum value of the plurality of distances and the minimum value of the plurality of distances is not more than 220 μm, an average of lengths in the first direction between the first edge and the second edge of each of the plurality of copper crystal grains is not more than 300 μm, each of the plurality of lengths is not more than 300 μm, and each of the plurality of lengths is not less than 70 μm.
For example, consider the case in which the crystal grain size of the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama after joining is about 300 µm as taught by Herbst. An arbitrary line can be drawn as claimed which essentially bisects a first copper grain (e.g., that is equated to one of the claimed plurality of copper crystal grains) having a diameter of about 300 µm and which crosses a second copper grain (e.g., that is equated to another one of the claimed plurality of copper crystal grains) having a diameter of about 300 µm, wherein the line crosses the second copper grain such that the length between the upper and lower edge crossings is 70 µm. In this case, the distance (i.e., in the X-direction of Kooriyama – corresponding to the claimed second direction) between the line and the farthest edge of the first copper grain is about 150 µm and the distance (i.e., in the X-direction of Kooriyama – corresponding to the claimed second direction) between the line and the farthest edge of the second copper grain is about 295.86 µm. Accordingly, the average of a plurality of distances in the second direction between the line and farthest edges of the plurality of copper crystal grains in the second direction is about 222.93 µm, i.e., not more than 300 µm, and a minimum value of the plurality of distances is about 150 µm, i.e., not less than 131 µm. Additionally, a difference between a maximum value (i.e., about 295.86 µm) of the plurality of distances and the minimum value (i.e., about 150 µm) of the plurality of distances is about 145.86 µm, i.e., not more than 220 μm. Moreover, a length as claimed (i.e., in the Z-direction of Kooriyama – equated with the claimed first direction) corresponding to the first copper gain is about 300 µm and a length as claimed (i.e., in the Z-direction of Kooriyama – equated with the claimed first direction) corresponding to second copper gain is 70 µm. Accordingly, a minimum value of a plurality of the lengths is not more than 200 µm. Also, each of the plurality of length is not more than 300 µm nor less than 70 µm.
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naba (US 20180005918 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama further discloses:
a plurality of the copper circuit parts (3); and
a plurality of first bonding layers (11) located respectively between the ceramic substrate (2) and the plurality of copper circuit parts (3). See, e.g., FIGS. 7A-B.
Kooriyama does not explicitly disclose wherein a minimum distance between adjacent first bonding layers of the plurality of first bonding layers is less than 1.0 mm.
However, in analogous art, Naba discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 2) a minimum distance between adjacent first bonding layers (5a, 5b) of a plurality of first bonding layers (5a, 5b) being less than 1.0 mm. Note, Naba discloses that the distance P is “1.0 mm or less.” Paragraph [0042]. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 2, the distance between first bonding layer (5a) and first bonding layer (5b) is less than 1.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have spaced the adjacent first bonding layers (11) of Kooriyama within less than 1.0 mm of one another as taught by Naba according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to thereby achieve a compact ceramic copper circuit board suitable for accommodating electronic components mounted thereto, while keeping conductive connecting members short. Moreover, by keeping the distance P narrow as disclosed by Naba (and hence the distance between adjacent first bonding layers small, e.g., less than 1.0 mm), it is possible to reduce a size of a semiconductor device on which the same number of semiconductor elements are mounted, and therefore, the semiconductor device can be made smaller; and making the semiconductor device smaller leads to improvement of a power density. See, e.g., Naba, paragraph [0043].
Regarding claim 13, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness in the first direction of the copper circuit part is not less than 0.5 mm.
However, in analogous art, Naba discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 1) a thickness in a first direction (i.e., the vertical direction) of a copper circuit part (3) is not less than 0.5 mm (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama with a thickness in the first direction (Z) of Kooriyama of not less than 0.5 mm as taught by Naba according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to thereby achieve both securing of a current-carrying capacity and improvement of heat release performance. See, e.g., Naba, paragraph [0019].
Regarding claim 15, Kooriyama in view of Herbst as applied to claim 1 discloses the ceramic copper circuit board according to claim 1.
Kooriyama does not explicitly disclose wherein the copper circuit part has a side surface that is continuously inclined with respect to the first direction.
However, in analogous art, Naba discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 1) wherein a copper circuit part (3) has a side surface (e.g., the right-side surface) that is continuously inclined with respect to a first direction (e.g., the vertical direction).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the side surface of the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama continuously inclined with respect to the first direction (Z) of Kooriyama as taught by Naba according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to achieve a desired shape of the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama.
Note, changes in shape are common practices that normally require only ordinary skill in that art and hence are considered routine expedients. See, e.g., MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the present case, (a) there is no evidence of record that the shape of the copper circuit part (i.e., having a side surface that is continuously inclined) is critical; (b) there is no evidence of record that the shape of the copper circuit part as claimed would cause the claimed device to perform differently than the prior art device; and (c) there is no persuasive evidence of record that the particular configuration of the claimed copper circuit part (i.e., having a side surface that is continuously inclined as claimed) is significant.
Additionally, the conclusion of obviousness is supported by the rational of “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predicable Results.” See MPEP §2143(I)(A). In particular, it is found that: (1) that the prior art (i.e., Kooriyama and Naba) includes each element claimed (see discussion of Kooriyama and Naba above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed (i.e., the copper circuit part (3) of Kooiyama and the inclined side surface of the copper circuit part (3) of Naba could have been combined) by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (i.e., the copper circuit part (3) of Kooriyama performs the same function as a circuit part and the inclined side surface disclosed by Naba performs the same function of defining a shape of a copper circuit part (3)); and (3) that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., it was predictable that the combination would result in a copper circuit part having a particular shape). Note, there is no evidence of record that a continuously inclined a side surface of a copper circuit part as claimed results in anything unexpected or unpredictable by one of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: “wherein, when the arbitrary line is drawn at any portion within the cross section of the copper circuit part: (i) an average of the plurality of distances is not more than 300 μm; (ii) a minimum value of the plurality of distances in not less than 131 μm; and (iii) an average of the plurality of lengths in not more than 300 μm,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P CORNELY whose telephone number is (571)272-4172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571) 272-1945. 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.
JOHN P. CORNELY
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812