DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Independent claim 1 is not anticipated by Tada at least because Tada does not teach a method for producing a metal-ceramic substrate comprising heating the stack by the stack passing through a heating zone. The Office alleges that paragraph 41 of Tada ‘...teaches heating in a furnace which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of heating the stack, the stack passing through a heating zone for heating.’ Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office’s position that heating in a furnace meets the broad and reasonable interpretation of heating the stack. Applicant notes that the stack passing through a heating zone involves a relative movement of the stack towards the heating zone such that the position of the stack relative to the position of the heating zone is changed, as opposed to a furnace, which is stationary. See Application at, e.g., [0050], [0056]-[0059] and [0084]. Applicant submits that the relative movement of the stack allows for a targeted control of energy input to the stack and is a key feature of the present invention.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. A pre-heated furnace/oven would meet a broad and reasonable interpretation “heating the stack by the stack passing through a heating zone”. This is supported by paragraph 49 of Applicant’s specification which recites “Preferably, the inlet is different from the outlet”. The preference implies an option where the inlet and outlet are the same, i.e. not different, such as a stationary preheated furnace/oven. Furthermore, paragraph 50 recites “the stack may be arranged so as to be mobile and the heating zone may be arranged in a stationary manner, or the stack and heating zone may be arranged so as to be mobile”. A stationary furnace/oven therefore meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of a “heating zone may be arranged in a stationary manner”.
Applicant then argues “If the stack passes through the heating zone, at which the stack passes through the heating zone can be ideally matched to the structure and the dimensions of the stack, so that only the energy input necessary for the formation of an integral bond between the ceramic body and the metal foil takes place”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant has not claimed any limitations reciting “the temperature in the heating zone and the speed at which the stack passes through the heating zone”.
Applicant’s arguments for the technical importance of passing the stack through a heating zone over a stationary heating zone are moot without claim limitations distinguishing the difference between Applicant’s argued heating zone vs a stationary heating zone, which as stated supra Applicant’s specification teaches.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tada et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0219756).
Regarding claim 1, Tada et al. teaches brazing a metal part made of a metal and ceramic part made of a ceramic which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of a method for producing a metal-ceramic substrate (paragraph 21). Tada et al. teaches a ceramic part which meets the limitation a ceramic body (paragraph 21). Tada et al. teaches method of brazing by producing a thin sheet or foil of an active silver braze containing about 2% by weight of an active metal such as titanium and zirconium, sandwiching the sheet or foil between the ceramic and the metal which meets the limitation a metal foil and a solder material in contact with the ceramic body and the metal foil, (paragraph 11). Tada et al. teaches copper but does not specify the melting temperature of copper. It is the position of the Office the metal copper would meet the limitation of “a metal having a melting point of at least 700°C” because dependent claim 4 defines “the metal having a melting point of at least 700°C is copper”. Tada et al. teaches tin and indium but does not specify the melting temperature of tin or indium (paragraph 47). It is the position of the Office the metals tin or indium would meet the limitation of “a metal having a melting point of less than 700°C” because dependent claim 5 defines “the metal having a melting point of less than 700°C is selected from the group consisting of tin, bismuth, indium, gallium, zinc, antimony and magnesium”. Tada et al. teaches an active metal is titanium (paragraph 28). Tada et al. teaches heating in a furnace which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of heating the stack, the stack passing through a heating zone for heating (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 2, Tada et al. teaches aluminum nitride or silicon nitride which meets the limitaiton of wherein the ceramic of the ceramic body is selected from the group consisting of aluminum nitride ceramics, silicon nitride ceramics and aluminum oxide ceramics (paragraph 40).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Tada et al. teaches a foil-form brazing material wherein the brazing material comprises a thin sheet or foil of a copper (abstract; paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 5, Tada et al. teaches tin or indium (paragraph 32)
Regarding claim 6, Tada et al. teaches active metal of the present invention may be, for example, titanium, zirconium, or hafnium and the compound of the active metal (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 7, Tada et al. teaches the powder, the thin sheet or the foil of the copper braze to be used may be commonly used copper braze and copper braze with a lowered melting point by adding tin which implies no silver (paragraph 33).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,108,026).
Tada et al. teaches active binder for brazing which is for use in brazing metals to ceramics but does not teach the atmosphere or peak temperature heating duration.
Su et al. teaches improved eutectic oxide bonding method is applied for bonding a metallic copper foil to a nonmetallic substrate by forming a liquid phase derived from a eutectic oxide composition (abstract). Su et al. teaches arrangement is heated in a commercial ultra-high purity grade nitrogen atmosphere initially at a temperature of about 1060 ̊C for about 30 minutes, during which the foil softens and deforms into intimate contact with the still-solid cuprous oxide deposit (column 3). Su et al. teaches the temperature is raised to about 1070 ̊C for about 30 minutes (column 3). Su et al. teaches at the higher temperature, a liquid form at the interface between the foil and the oxide deposit and continues to grow, consuming the oxide deposit, until reaching and wetting the substrate surface (column 3). Su et al. teaches the assembly is cooled, following which the foil is tightly bonded to substrate (column 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an inert atmosphere for heating the metal ceramic stack taught by Tada et al. to a temperature and time sufficient to produce a tight bond.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Su et al. teaches the copper layer is heated at a temperature between 800 to 1065 ̊C which meets the limitation wherein the peak temperature is from 800 °C to 1000 °C (column 1; lines 65-68).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Su et al. teaches the copper layer is heated at a temperature between 800 to 1065 ̊C which meets the limitation wherein the peak temperature is from 800 °C to 1000 °C (column 1; lines 65-68). Su et al. teaches substrate is heated for between 5 and 10 minutes to substantially react the metal to form the desired cuprous oxide (column 3, lines 10-20). Su et al. teaches the eutectic oxide bonding method of this invention is utilized to bond a metallic copper foil to a ceramic substrate and includes preforming a cuprous oxide film on the substrate prior to applying the metallic copper foil (column 1; lines 55-68). One of ordinary skill in the art could determine through routine experimentation the heating-up duration and a ratio of the peak-temperature heating duration time period and the heating-up duration time duration is in a range of 1:2 to 1:15. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knoll (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0002239) teaches to join metal-ceramic substrate and metal body, the assembly comprising the metal-ceramic substrate, the metal alloy and the metal body is advantageously introduced into a furnace, e.g., a tunnel kiln, and preferably heated to a temperature above the melting point of the joining layer, but advantageously below the melting points of any ceramic substrate metallization present and of the metal body (paragraph 88).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 04/27/2026
Prosecution Insights