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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 1-2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (JP 2019147709A, machine translation used for citations including a machine translation of Table 1), in view of Matsuura et al (JP H06144809 A, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Hitomi discloses an aluminum nitride powder, i.e. particle ([0001]).
However, the recitation in the claims that the aluminum nitride particle is “used as a material for an aluminum nitride plate” is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Hitomi discloses an aluminum nitride particle as presently claimed, it is clear that the aluminum nitride particle of Hitomi would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. used as a material for an aluminum nitride plate, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Hitomi further discloses the carbon concentration of the aluminum nitride powder is 100 ppm by mass or less ([0066], meeting limitation “wherein a carbon content in the aluminum nitride particle is 100 ppm or less).
Hitomi does not disclose “a first region in which the oxygen content is high is provided on a surface layer of the aluminum nitride particle, a second region in which the oxygen content is lower than the first region is provided inward of the first region, and the oxygen content in the second region is 500 ppm or less”.
Matsuura discloses an aluminum nitride powder having a surface coating layer which reduces the amount of oxygen that diffuses and dissolves from the surface coating layer into the crystal grains during heating, prevents the occurrence of microcracks due to the difference in thermal expansion coefficient between the surface coating layer and the interior, thereby suppressing an increase in the amount of oxygen, and furthermore allows the oxygen in the surface coating layer to be efficiently utilized during liquid phase generation, thereby contributing to improved sinterability ([0010]). The aluminum nitride powder provided by the present invention is characterized in that the surface of the aluminum nitride powder particles has an oxynitride layer ([0011] meeting limitation "a first region in which the oxygen content is high is provided on a surface layer of the aluminum nitride particle"). This oxynitride layer 3 is amorphous and chemically stable, has a low oxygen coefficient… furthermore, the amount of oxygen dissolved in the crystal grains 2 inside the powder is significantly reduced ([0017] meeting limitation "a second region in which the oxygen content is lower than the first region is provided inward of the first region").
Matsuura further discloses according to the present invention, the amount of oxygen within the crystal grains is much less, and it can be seen that the amount of oxygen is kept below 0.2 wt% particularly at heating temperatures below 1400C ([0032]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Matsuura (below 0.2 wt%, equivalent to below 2000ppm) overlaps with the claimed range (500 ppm or less). Therefore, the range in Matsuura renders obvious the claimed range.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a first region in which the oxygen content is high is provided on a surface layer of the aluminum nitride particle, a second region in which the oxygen content is lower than the first region is provided inward of the first region, and the oxygen content in the second region is 500 ppm or less in the composition of Hitomi in order to prevent the occurrence of microcracks due to the difference in thermal expansion coefficient between the surface coating layer and the interior, thereby suppressing an increase in the amount of oxygen, and furthermore allowing the oxygen in the surface coating layer to be efficiently utilized during liquid phase generation, thereby contributing to improved sinterability as taught by Matsuura.
Regarding claim 2, Hitomi in view of Matsuura discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Hitomi further discloses the total oxygen concentration of the aluminum nitride powder is 0.7 mass % which is equivalent to 7000 ppm by mass ([0090], Table 1 Example 4). Aluminum nitride powder is also disclosed with a total oxygen concentration of 0.8 mass % which is equivalent to 8000 ppm by mass (Table 1 Examples 1-2, meeting limitation “wherein an oxygen content in the aluminum nitride particle is 500 ppm or more and 8000 ppm or less”).
Regarding claim 5, Hitomi in view of Matsuura discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Hitomi further discloses an aluminum nitride particle with average particle size 2.7-2.9 µm (Table 1, Example 1-5, meeting limitation “wherein a size of the aluminum nitride particle is 0.1 μm or more and 10 μm or less”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (JP 2019147709A, machine translation used for citations including a machine translation of Table 1), in view of Matsuura et al (JP H06144809 A, machine translation used for citations), as evidenced by WebPlotDigitizer (https://web.eecs.utk.edu/~dcostine/personal/PowerDeviceLib/DigiTest/index.html).
Regarding claim 4, Hitomi discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses claim limitations as set forth above. Hitomi further discloses Figure 1 showing an electron microscope photograph of particles of the aluminum nitride powder of Example 1. Using WebPlotDigitizer (https://web.eecs.utk.edu/~dcostine/personal/PowerDeviceLib/DigiTest/index.html) measurements were made to determine the perimeter of a particle using the scale bar for calibration. A measurement was also made to determine the “size” of the particle as defined in the instant specification “a diameter of the particle when the particle appearing in the screen is assumed as being circular.” The “perimeter ratio” as defined in the instant specification “the perimeter of the particle with respect to the size of the particle in the plan view” was calculated. The following is an image showing where the measurements were made.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The measurements are as follows:
Particle perimeter (µm)
1.84
Particle “size” (µm)
0.48
Perimeter ratio
3.83
The measured perimeter ratio is within the claimed range of 3.5 to 7, therefore this teaching meets the claimed limitation of “wherein when the aluminum nitride particle is viewed in a plan view, a perimeter of the particle with respect to a size of the particle in the plane view is 3.5 times or more and 7 times or less the size.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights