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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5, 8-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (PGPub No. 20210068253) in further view of Kato2 (PGPub No. 20190172765).
Regarding claim 1, Kato teaches a ceramic substrate, comprising: a flat plate-shaped insulating base comprising a ceramic ([0023] points to a ceramic copper circuit board comprising a ceramic substrate 2 (insulating base). Figs. 7A-7B further point to schematic plan view of said circuit board, which shows the surface and shape (flat plate-shaped) of the ceramic substrate 2.); a first brazing material layer provided on a first main surface of the insulating base; a second brazing material layer provided on a second main surface of the insulating base (Fig. 8, [0065], and [0068] point to a brazing material layer 5 (first brazing material layer) and a brazing material layer 7 (second brazing material layer) bonded to opposite surfaces of a ceramic substrate 2 (insulating base).); a circuit plate comprising a metal and being fixed through the first brazing material layer to the insulating base on a first main surface-side (Fig. 8 points to a front copper plate 3 (circuit plate) bonded to brazing material layer 5 (first brazing material layer).); and a heat dissipation plate comprising a metal and being fixed through the second brazing material layer to the insulating base on a second main surface-side (Id. points to a back copper plate 4 (heat dissipation plate) bonded to brazing material layer 7 (second brazing material layer).), wherein a thickness of the heat dissipation plate is larger than a thickness of the circuit plate, wherein the thickness of the heat dissipation plate is 0.6 mm or more and 1.5 mm or less, wherein a difference in thickness between the circuit plate and the heat dissipation plate is 0.20 mm or more and 0.30 mm or less (Fig. 8 and [0067] point to both the front copper plate 3 (circuit plate) having a thickness T, which is 0.60 mm or more. Additionally, [0067] points to the back copper plate 4 (heat dissipation plate) having a thickness that is equal to or different from the thickness of the front copper plate 3 (circuit plate). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the difference in thicknesses between plates to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kato to have the difference in thicknesses within the claimed range in order to better control warpage across the insulating base, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.), wherein a thickness of the first brazing material layer is larger than a thickness of the second brazing material layer, wherein the thickness of the first brazing material layer is 20 µm or more and 70 µm or less, wherein the thickness of the second brazing material is 10 µm or more and 30 µm or less, and wherein a difference between the thickness of the first brazing material layer and the thickness of the second brazing material layer is 10 µm or more and 50 µm or less (Fig. 1 and [0039] point to a first brazing material part 5a (first brazing material layer) and a second brazing material part 5b (second brazing material layer), where the thickness of each brazing material part is within the range of 10 to 60 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the difference in thicknesses between brazing material layers to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kato to have the difference in thicknesses within the claimed range in order to better control warpage by improving bonding between the insulating base and corresponding plates and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.), wherein the insulating base has a rectangular shape (Figs. 7A-7B point to schematic plan view of said circuit board comprising a rectangular-shaped ceramic substrate 2 (insulating base).), and wherein an amount of warpage of the insulating base per 100 mm in a direction along each side of the insulating base is 1.0 mm or less.
Kato fails to teach wherein an amount of warpage of the insulating base per 100 mm in a direction along each side of the insulating base is 1.0 mm or less.
Kato2 teaches wherein an amount of warpage of the insulating base per 100 mm in a direction along each side of the insulating base is 1.0 mm or less ([0039] points to the longer side length and the shorter side length of the ceramic substrate 2 (insulating base) each preferably falling within a range of 10 mm to 200 mm. [0068] further points to the warpage amounts of either side lengths falling within a range of 0.01 to 1.0 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the lengths of each substrate side to be a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kato2 to have the lengths of each side of the ceramic substrate/insulating base within the claimed range in order to achieve the predetermined range of warpage of 0.01 to 1.0 mm, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato and Kato2, such that the amount of warpage is set to a specific length range of the insulating base in order to scale down the tolerance issue and by extension better control assembly precision, electrical integrity, and/or thermal management.
Regarding claim 5, Kato teaches wherein the thickness of the circuit plate is 0.5 mm or more and 1.2 mm or less (Fig. 8 and [0067] point to both the front copper plate 3 (circuit plate) having a thickness T, which is 0.60 mm or more. In the case where the claimed ranges “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).).
Regarding claim 8, Kato teaches wherein the circuit plate and the heat dissipation plate comprise a same type of metal (Fig. 8 points to the front copper plate 3 (circuit plate) and the back copper plate 4 (heat dissipation plate).).
Regarding claim 9, Kato teaches wherein the thickness of the circuit plate is 0.5 mm or more and 1.2 mm or less (Fig. 8 and [0067] point to both the front copper plate 3 (circuit plate) having a thickness T, which is 0.60 mm or more. In the case where the claimed ranges “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).).
Regarding claim 10, Kato2 teaches wherein the insulating base has a length of 100 mm or more, in both a long-side direction and a short-side direction of the insulating base ([0039] points to the longer side length and the shorter side length of the ceramic substrate 2 (insulating base) each preferably falling within a range of 10 mm to 200 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “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).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato and Kato2, such that each side length of the insulating base falls within the claimed range(s) in order to create a structure that is large enough to secure a space for joining additional components yet small enough to control the warpage amount without difficulty.
Regarding claim 11, Kato teaches wherein the insulating base includes a silicon nitride substrate ([0026] points to the ceramic substrate 2 (insulating base) being a silicon nitride substrate.).
Regarding claim 13, Kato teaches wherein the circuit plate and the heat dissipation plate comprise copper sheets (Fig. 8 points to the front copper plate 3 (circuit plate) and the back copper plate 4 (heat dissipation plate).).
Regarding claim 14, Kato2 teaches wherein the circuit plate and the heat dissipation plate comprise aluminum sheets ([0022] points to a front metal plate 3 (circuit plate) and a rear metal plate 4 (heat dissipation plate) containing aluminum). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato and Kato2, such that the circuit plate and the heat dissipation plate comprise aluminum sheets in order to form each plate with a material that still has good heat conductivity yet in comparison to copper yet has a much lower rigidness which can better handle cases of warpage.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (PGPub No. 20210068253) et al. in further view of Kitahara (PGPub No. 20210050278).
Regarding claim 7, Kitahara teaches a ceramic divided substrate that is formed by dividing the ceramic substrate according to claim 1 into a plurality of pieces (Figs. 4A-4B and [0045] point to partitioning the ceramic board 21 (dividing the ceramic substrate) to form a plurality of substrate board-forming areas 212 (a plurality of pieces) which will be the ceramic substrate boards 11 (a ceramic divided substrate).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato et al. and Kitahara, such that the ceramic substrate is divided into a plurality of pieces in order to create functional separation, maintain proper thermal management, and/or control stress distribution.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (PGPub No. 20210068253) et al. in further view of Leschkies (PGPub No. 20210346983).
Regarding claim 12, Kato teaches wherein the insulating base has the rectangular shape in a plan view (Figs. 7A-7B point to schematic plan view of said circuit board comprising a rectangular-shaped ceramic substrate 2 (insulating base).).
Kato fails to teach wherein the insulating base has four corners chamfered, and wherein the insulating base has a length of 100 mm or more for both a long side and a short side of the insulating base.
Leschkies teaches wherein the insulating base has four corners chamfered ([0030] points to a substrate 106 which may have chamfered edges.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato and Kitahara, such that the insulating base has four corners chamfered in order to reduce stress concentrations, prevent edge chipping, and/or improve alignment of the overall structure within an existing system.
Kato et al. fails to teach wherein the insulating base has a length of 100 mm or more for both a long side and a short side of the insulating base.
Kato2 teaches wherein the insulating base has a length of 100 mm or more for both a long side and a short side of the insulating base ([0039] points to the longer side length and the shorter side length of the ceramic substrate 2 (insulating base) each preferably falling within a range of 10 mm to 200 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “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).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato and Kato2, such that each side length of the insulating base falls within the claimed range(s) in order to create a structure that is large enough to secure a space for joining additional components yet small enough to control the warpage amount without difficulty.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 (and by extension any dependent claims) under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. §103 under Kato in further view of Kato2.
Regarding Applicant’s previous argument(s) towards the use of Kato in claim 1, however, specifically regarding the difference in thicknesses between 1) the circuit plate and the heat dissipation plate and 2) the first and second brazing material layers, Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. As better discussed above, Examiner holds that each of the exact component thicknesses is supported by the ranges taught in Kato, and that the corresponding differences in thickness are a matter of optimization that fall within said ranges. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are considered unpersuasive and fail to overcome the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s previous argument(s) towards the use of Kato2 in the previously used claim 6 (now canceled and amended into claim 1), specifically the amount of warpage per 100 mm of insulating base, Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. As better discussed above, Examiner holds that Kato2 teaches two predetermined ranges, that being the ranges of length described in [0039] and the amount of warpage described in [0068], such that the warpage range of 0.01 to 1.0 mm applies to every possible length within the range of 10 to 200 mm; furthermore, it is considered a matter of optimization that the lengths (and by extension amount of warpage) taught by Kato2 correspond to the 100 mm as disclosed in the claimed invention. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are considered unpersuasive and fail to overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick L Cullen whose telephone number is (703)756-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30AM - 5PM 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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/PATRICK CULLEN/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights