Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/126,824

CERAMIC SUBSTRATE, CERAMIC DIVIDED SUBSTRATE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CERAMIC SUBSTRATE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 27, 2023
Examiner
WILLIS, TREMESHA S
Art Unit
2847
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Proterial Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
679 granted / 873 resolved
+9.8% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
917
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
§102
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 873 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Amendment/Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 – 5, and 7 – 11 have been considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. 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 1 – 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (JP 2011-67849A) in view of Suenaga et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0274992). Regarding claim 1, in Figures 1 – 4, Abe discloses a ceramic substrate, consisting essentially of: a rectangular flat plate-shaped silicon nitride substrate (21) (support substrate 21 can be made of silicon nitride, paragraph [0050]); a first brazing material layer (31, paragraph [0037]) provided on a first main surface (21a, top surface of substrate 21) of the silicon nitride substrate; a second brazing material layer (32, paragraph [0037]) provided on a second main surface (21b, bottom surface of substrate 21) of the silicon nitride substrate; a first metal layer (51, paragraph [0037]) for mounting an electric circuit component (41a, 41b; 41a and 41b are circuit members, paragraph [0029]) and comprising a metal (paragraph [0037]) and being fixed through the first brazing material layer to the silicon nitride substrate on a first main surface-side (Figure 1); and a second metal layer (52, paragraph [0037]) for dissipating heat generated by the electric circuit component and comprising a metal (paragraph [0037]) and being fixed through the second brazing material layer to the silicon nitride substate on a second main surface-side (Figure 1), wherein the first metal layer and the second metal layer are made of a same metal (paragraph [0037] and a difference in thickness between the first metal layer and the second metal layer is 0.02 mm or less (the metal layers 51 and 52 are set to the same thickness, paragraph [0082], thus, the difference in the thicknesses of the metal layers 51 and 52 is zero or about zero, which is less than 0.02 mm), wherein a thickness of the first brazing material layer and a thickness of the second brazing material layer are 11.2 µm or more and 20.4 µm or less at any location (joining layers 31, 32 are 0.02mm = 20 µm thick; paragraph [0082]), wherein a difference between the thickness of the first brazing material layer at a given point and the thickness of the second brazing material layer at a point located behind the given point is 4.0 µm or less (the bonding layers 31 and 32 are set to the same thickness, paragraph [0082], thus, the difference in the thicknesses of bonding layers 31 and 32 is zero or about zero, which is less than 4.0 µm), wherein an amount of warpage of the silicon nitride substrate in every 100 mm in a direction along each side of the silicon nitride substate is 0.03 mm or less. Abe does not specifically disclose wherein an amount of warpage of the silicon nitride substrate in every 100 mm in a direction along each side of the silicon nitride substate is 0.03 mm or less. However, in paragraph [0085], Suenaga discloses controlling the amount of warpage of a silicon nitride substrate to within a range from 0.1 mm to 1 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the amount of warpage of the silicon nitride substrate 21 of Abe to be 0.03 mm or less in every 100 mm in a direction along each side of the silicon nitride substate as taught by Suenaga in order to have low warpage and/or to reduce the amount of warpage in the substrate. Regarding claim 2, Abe discloses wherein a relational expression (Ta-Tb)/Ta≤0.2 is satisfied where Ta is the larger of the thickness of the first brazing material layer and the thickness of the second brazing material layer at a given point and Tb is the smaller of the two (paragraph [0082]). Regarding claim 3, Abe discloses wherein one of the first metal layer and the second metal layer comprises a circuit plate on which an electrical circuit component is mounted, and the other comprises a heat dissipation plate, and wherein a difference between a thickness of the first metal layer and a thickness of the second metal layer is not more than 0.02 mm (Figures 1 – 4). Regarding claim 4, Abe discloses wherein the insulating base has a rectangular shape, and wherein an amount of warpage of the insulation base in every 100 mm in a direction along each side of the insulation base is not more than 0.03 mm (paragraph [0050]). Regarding claim 5, Abe discloses a ceramic divided substrate that is formed by dividing the ceramic substrate according to claim 1 into a plurality of pieces (Figures 1 – 4). Regarding claim 8, Abe discloses wherein a precision being significant figures for 4.0 µm, wherein the first brazing material layer and the second brazing material layer varying in thickness along a length at different points (Figures 1 – 4). Regarding claim 10, Abe discloses wherein a thickness of the first brazing material layer varies within a range of 13.8 µm or more along a length of the first brazing material layer, while the thickness of the second brazing material layer varies within a range of 11.2 µm or more along a length of the second brazing material layer (Figures 1 – 4). Claims 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe. Regarding claim 7, Abe discloses the ceramic substrate according to claim 1. Abe does not specifically disclose wherein a difference control between the thickness of the first brazing material layer at the given point and the thickness of the second brazing material layer at the point located behind the given point is controlled within a precision of 4.0 µm or less. However, providing for the difference of the thicknesses of a first layer and a second layer to be controlled within a requisite precision is common place and well known in the art, and is merely a design option for a skilled artisan without the exercise of inventive skill. Regarding claim 9, Abe discloses the ceramic substrate according to claim 1. Abe does not specifically disclose wherein a difference control between the thickness of the first brazing material layer at a given point and the thickness of the second brazing material layer at the given point is controlled to a maximum difference of 4.0 µm with significant digits. However, providing for the difference of the thicknesses of a first layer and a second layer to be controlled within a requisite precision is common place and well known in the art, and is merely a design option for a skilled artisan without the exercise of inventive skill. Regarding claim 11, Abe discloses the ceramic substrate according to claim 10. Abe does not specifically disclose wherein a difference control between the thickness of the first brazing material layer at the given point and the thickness of the second brazing material layer at the given point is configured to be controlled to within a maximum difference of 4.0 µm. However, providing for the difference of the thicknesses of a first layer and a second layer to be controlled within a requisite precision is common place and well known in the art, and is merely a design option for a skilled artisan without the exercise of inventive skill. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 is allowed. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TREMESHA W BURNS whose telephone number is (571)270-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 4:30 pm 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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. TREMESHA W. BURNS Primary Examiner Art Unit 2847 /TREMESHA W BURNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 13, 2025
Response Filed
May 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 25, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 25, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 10, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604417
COPPER CLAD LAMINATE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604446
INTEGRATED DEVICE PACKAGE WITH REDUCED THICKNESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604410
ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598702
PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598826
IMAGE SENSOR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+17.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 873 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month