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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 9:
Each of these claims recites the limitation, “wherein the second metal sheet has an area corresponding to respective areas of the first metal sheet and the third metal sheet, such that the second metal sheet is interposed there between over an entire area”; however, the examiner does not find support for this limitation the specification. Furthermore, it appears “respective areas” and “an entire area” could be any chosen area; accordingly, the limitation does not appear to have any patentably distinguishing features over the prior art, especially because the specification does not describe or disclose “an entire area” with enough specificity for the limitation to be able to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claims 3-8 and 10-16:
These claims depend from either claim 1 or claim 9; accordingly, they contain new matter not supported by the specification as originally filed.
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 and 3-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016042538A (hereafter, “Ishizuka”, prior art of record and reference will be made to the English translation provided with a prior Office Action) in view of Idrac et al. (US 20160254210 A1, hereinafter, “Idrac”, prior art of record),
Regarding claim 1:
Ishizuka discloses a power module 30 (Fig. 1; [0013]) comprising:
a base plate 20 [0013] (Fig. 3) having a recess 23 [0016] on an upper surface thereof
(Fig. 3);
a brazing filler layer (see [0013] and [0018] disclosing brazing material(s)) disposed in
the recess 23 (see [0017]); and
a ceramic substrate 10 [0013] bonded to the upper surface of the base plate 20 by brazing via the brazing filler layer [0015, 0018].
Ishizuka does not disclose wherein the base plate 20 has a three-layer structure in which a second metal sheet is disposed between a first metal sheet and a third metal sheet,
and the first metal sheet and the third metal sheet being formed of a metal material having a higher coefficient of thermal expansion and thermal conductivity than the second metal sheet,
wherein the second metal sheet has an area corresponding to respective areas of the first metal sheet and the third metal sheet, such that the second metal sheet is interposed therebetween over an entire area.
Idrac teaches a power module (Fig. 1) comprising a base plate 1 [0049] has a three-layer
structure (see Figs. 1 and 4) in which a second metal sheet 8 [0049] is disposed between a first
metal sheet 6 [0049] and a third metal sheet 7 [0049],
and the first metal sheet 6 and the third metal sheet 7 being formed of a metal material
having a relatively higher coefficient of thermal expansion and thermal conductivity than the
second metal sheet (see [0011] and [0021]),
wherein the second metal sheet 8 has an area corresponding to respective areas (e.g., areas in Zone A in Fig. 1) of the first metal sheet 6 and the third metal sheet, such that the second metal sheet 18 is interposed therebetween over an entire area (of Zone A in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishizuka by incorporating a three layer base layer, as taught by Idrac, in order to provide a substrate that can last longer by withstanding high temperatures with lower stress, as taught by Idrac [0005, 0019].
Regarding claims 3-8:
re claim 3, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 1, and
Idrac further teaches wherein the first metal sheet 6 and the third metal sheet 7 of the base
plate 20 are made of Cu [0050], and the second metal sheet 8 is made of any one of CuMo, Mo
and W [0055] (where "and" is interpreted by the examiner to include combinations thereof);
re claim 4, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 1, wherein the recess 23 comprises a plurality of recesses (see Fig. 3);
re claim 5, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 1, wherein the recess 23 has a height (specifically, the height of 23b, to be principally filled, see Fig. 2) equal to or smaller than a thickness of the brazing filler layer ("At this time, the brazing material is likely to enter the conical portion 23b in the vicinity of the opening, but the volume of the conical portion 23b may be 60% or more in the entire volume of the recessed portion 23 since the brazing material hardly enters the columnar portion 23a" [0017]; in other words, the thickness of the brazing filler layer is at least the height of 23b);
re claim 6, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 1, wherein the brazing filler layer is made of an alloy material including AgCu or AgCuTi (see bonding material including AgCu [0018]; see also "active metal brazing material" [0015]);
re claim 7, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 1, however, Ishizuka does not explicitly disclose wherein the brazing filler layer 23 (Fig. 2) has a thickness (thickness of brazing material in 23a [0017]; Fig. 2) in a range of 5 to 100 µm. However, Ishizuka teaches the brazing material extends into the recess portion 23a ("the brazing material hardly enters the columnar portion 23a" [0017]), and teaches the 23a has a height of 500 to 3500 µm [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to make a thickness of the brazing filler layer in a range of 5 to
100 µm, in the normal course of experimentation and optimization to increase the bonding
surface area and promote the anchoring effect between the layers (see [0008]) (MPEP 2144.05
(II)); and
re claim 8, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 1,
wherein the ceramic substrate 10 includes a ceramic base 11 [0013] and a plurality of metal
layers 12 and 13 [0013] on upper and lower surfaces of the ceramic base 11 (Fig. 3), and the
metal layers 12 and 13 are made of one of Cu, a Cu alloy, OFC, EPT Cu, and Al (see [0014]).
Therefore, Ishizuka (in view of Idrac) renders claims 3-8 obvious.
Regarding claim 9:
Ishizuka discloses a power module 30 (Fig. 1; [0013]) comprising:
a base plate 20 [0013] (Fig. 3);
a brazing filler layer (see [0013] and [0018]) disposed on an upper surface of the base plate 20; and
a ceramic substrate 10 [0013] bonded to the upper surface of the base plate 20 by brazing via the brazing filler layer (see [0018]),
wherein the brazing filler layer comprises a plurality of brazing filler layers (portions of
the brazing filler layer disposed in recess portions 23 [0016]) that are divided and arranged on
the upper surface of the base plate 20 (see Figs. 3 & 2).
Ishizuka does not disclose wherein the base plate 20 has a three-layer structure in which a second metal sheet is disposed between a first metal sheet and a third metal sheet,
and the first metal sheet and the third metal sheet being formed of a metal material having a relatively higher coefficient of thermal expansion and thermal conductivity than the second metal sheet,
wherein the second metal sheet has an area corresponding to respective areas of the first metal sheet and the third metal sheet, such that the second metal sheet is interposed therebetween over an entire area.
Idrac teaches a power module (Fig. 1) comprising a base plate 1 [0049] has a three-layer
structure (see Figs. 1 and 4) in which a second metal sheet 8 [0049] is disposed between a first
metal sheet 6 [0049] and a third metal sheet 7 [0049],
and the first metal sheet 6 and the third metal sheet 7 being formed of a metal material
having a relatively higher coefficient of thermal expansion and thermal conductivity than the
second metal sheet (see [0011] and [0021]),
wherein the second metal sheet 8 has an area corresponding to respective areas (e.g., areas in Zone A in Fig. 1) of the first metal sheet 6 and the third metal sheet, such that the second metal sheet 18 is interposed therebetween over an entire area (of Zone A in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishizuka by incorporating a three layer base layer, as taught by Idrac, in order to provide a substrate that can last longer by withstanding high temperatures with lower stress, as taught by Idrac [0005, 0019].
Regarding claims 10-16:
re claim 10, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 9, and teaches wherein the plurality of brazing filler layers 23 have the same areas (cylindrical; see [0017]),
Ishizuka does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of brazing filler layers 23 (the
plurality corresponding to the plurality of 23) are divided and arranged in any one of a 2x1
array, a 2x2 array, and a 4x4 array, but rather teaches a plurality arranged to cover the bonding
surface area between layers 20 and 13 (see [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to divide and arrange the plurality of brazing fill layers 23 into any one of a 2x1 array, a 2x2 array, and a 4x4 array, given one could readily choose to "divide and arrange" the plurality of brazing filler layers 23 into any number of groups corresponding to subdivisions of the bonding area between 20 and 13 to ensure that each portion of the array (for example 2x2) has enough brazing filler layer portions 23 so as to equally anchor down all bonding areas (see annotated Fig. 1 below for illustrative example) (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
re claim 11, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 9, wherein the plurality of brazing filler layers (corresponding to 23) are arranged in a matrix (where Fig. 3 is a cross-sectional view and wherein the recesses are spread over an area of the bonding interface between 13 and 20 [0018]) on the upper surface of the base plate 20 (Fig. 3) and spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance (where fins 22 [0016] are spaced with a pitch [0016] and recesses 23 are formed to correspond with fins 22 [0017]);
re claim 12, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 9; however, Ishizuka does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of brazing filler layers 23 have a volume (corresponding to the total volume of the brazing material in 23) in a range of 85% to
115% of a volume of a metal layer (see metal layer 13 [0018]; where the volume corresponds to
the volume directly above each recessed portion 23) on a lower surface of the ceramic substrate 11, but does teach that the metal layer 13 has a thickness of 0.1mm to 10mm and each brazing filler layer 23 has a thickness h2 (where the brazing material fills at least the entirety of 23b [0017]; see Fig. 2) of at least 0.2 to 1.0mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to choose a thickness of the metal layer 13 and a thickness of
each brazing filler layer such that the volume of the plurality of brazing filler layers 23 is in the
range of 85% to 115% of the volume of the metal layer 13 in the normal course of experimentation and optimization to create a thin device profile while insuring enough brazing
material is disposed so as to sufficiently fill the recesses and ensure a good bond between 20
and 13 (see MPEP 2144.05 (II));
re claim 13, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 9, wherein the base plate 20 has a plurality of recesses 23 in which the plurality of brazing filler layers (corresponding to the brazing material in 23) are disposed [0018];
re claim 14, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of brazing filler layers is made of an alloy material including AgCu or AgCuTi (see bonding material including AgCu [0018]; see also "active metal brazing material" [0015]);
re claim 15, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 9; however, Ishizuka does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of brazing filler layers 23 (Fig. 2) has a thickness (thickness of brazing material in 23a [0017]; Fig. 2) in a range of 5 to 100 µm.
However, Ishizuka teaches the brazing material extends into the recess portion 23a
("the brazing material hardly enters the columnar portion 23a" [0017]), and teaches the 23a has a height of 500 to 3500 µm [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to make a thickness of each of the plurality of brazing filler layers
in a range of 5 to 100 µm, in the normal course of experimentation and optimization to increase
the bonding surface area and promote the anchoring effect between the layers (see [0008])
(MPEP 2144.05 (II)); and
re claim 16, Ishizuka in view of Idrac teaches the power module of claim 1, and Idrac further teaches wherein the first metal sheet 6 and the third metal sheet 7 of the base plate 20 are made of Cu [0050], and the second metal sheet 8 is made of any one of CuMo, Mo and W [0055] (where "and" is interpreted by the examiner to include combinations thereof).
Therefore, Ishizuka (in view of Idrac) renders claims 10-16 obvious.
Remarks
Claims 17-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
The objection to the title is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claims 1 and 9.
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully reviewed and considered; however, as explained in detail hereinbefore, the amendment is deemed to introduce new matter not supported by the specification as originally filed. Because the new matter is not disclosed or described in the specification in a manner that would distinguish from any desired chosen area, the amendment to the claims are considered to be disclosed by the prior art of record. Therefore, in addition to eh new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), claims 1-16 are deemed to be obvious essentially for reasons stated in the prior Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892