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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 5, 2026, has been entered.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0072547 Osanai et al in view of US 5,476,725 Papich et al.
Regarding claim 1, Osanai teaches an aluminum-ceramic bonded substrate (paragraph 0001)
in which an aluminum plate comprising aluminum alloy is directly bonded to one surface of a ceramic substrate and an aluminum base plate comprising aluminum alloy is directly bonded to the other surface of the ceramic substrate (paragraph 0069),
wherein the aluminum alloy is the aluminum alloy containing nickel (paragraph 0017), containing titanium (paragraph 0019) and containing boron, with a balance being aluminum (paragraph 0069).
Osanai does not explicitly teach the exact composition of the aluminum alloy. Papich teaches a brazing sheet with an aluminum core that is clad with a brazing material (column 3, lines 32-35). Papich further teaches that the aluminum alloy may have an iron content of 0.1-0.7%, a titanium content of 0.01-0.2%, and a boron content that is 20-40% of titanium, resulting in 0.002-0.08% (column 6, lines 39-52).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught ranges of iron, titanium and boron reads on the claimed ranges of iron, titanium and boron.
The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have replaced the aluminum alloy of Osanai with that of Papich using known methods and there is no evidence that the aluminum alloy of the claim performs differently when combined with the other elements than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results. (MPEP 2141, Part III KSR A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Papich does not teach the hardness of the aluminum plate. However, as Osanai in view of Papich satisfies all of the previous limitations, Papich’s materials are indistinguishable from the claimed materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Papich’s aluminum alloy would also exhibit a hardness of 17-25HV. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Furthermore, when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §2112, Section V. In this case, Osanai in view of Papich appears to form the same product with the same structure as that of the instant invention. Applicant may provide evidence proving a difference between the products.
Regarding claim 4, Papich teaches that an average crystal grain size in a surface of the aluminum plate is 200 microns in width (column 4, lines 8-25, where “size” may be any dimension).
Regarding claim 6, Papich does not teach the electrical resistivity of the aluminum plate. However, as Osanai in view of Papich satisfies all of the previous limitations, Papich’s materials are indistinguishable from the claimed materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Papich’s aluminum alloy would also exhibit an electrical resistivity of 3.2 µΩ∙cm or less. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Furthermore, when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §2112, Section V. In this case, Osanai in view of Papich appears to form the same product with the same structure as that of the instant invention. Applicant may provide evidence proving a difference between the products.
Regarding claim 7, Osanai teaches that a main component of the ceramic substrate is aluminum nitride (paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 9, Papich teaches the composition of the aluminum alloy with respect to claim 1 above. Osanai further teaches a method for manufacturing an aluminum-ceramic bonded substrate (paragraph 0001), comprising:
placing a ceramic substrate in a mold, and pouring molten aluminum alloy into the mold so as to be in contact with both sides of the ceramic substrate, followed by cooling (paragraph 0069, where injecting is a type of pouring) and
thereby, forming an aluminum plate 112 comprising the aluminum alloy on one surface of the ceramic substrate 110 and directly bonding it to the ceramic substrate (paragraph 0069); and
forming an aluminum base plate 112 comprising the aluminum alloy on the other surface of the ceramic substrate (figure 5) and directly bonding it to the ceramic substrate (paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 10, Osanai teaches all of the limitations with respect to claim 7 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0072547 Osanai et al in view of US 5,476,725 Papich et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0284296 Osanai et al (hereinafter Osanai2).
Regarding claim 5, Osanai in view of Papich teaches the aluminum-ceramic bonded substrate, but neither teaches the roughness of the aluminum surface. Osanai2 teaches a metal-ceramic bonded substrate where the surface of the ceramic substrate has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 0.15-0.30 microns (paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the roughness of Osanai2 in the product of Osanai because this roughness aids the heat cycle resistance of the bond (paragraph 0024). It would be further obvious to create this roughness on the surface of the metal rather than the ceramic because roughening either face of the bonded interface would produce the same result.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0072547 Osanai et al in view of US 5,476,725 Papich et al as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US 2019/0350078 Wakabayashi et al.
Regarding claim 8, Osanai in view of Papich teaches the aluminum-ceramic bonded substrate but neither teaches the use of a reinforcing member. Wakabayashi teaches an aluminum and aluminum nitride bonded substrate, wherein a plate-like reinforcing member 6 is arranged inside the aluminum base plate (paragraph 0039) and directly bonded to the aluminum base plate (figure 2).
Wakabayashi does not explicitly teach that the reinforcing member has a hardness greater than that of the aluminum base plate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a reinforcing member with a hardness greater than that of the aluminum base plate because this reduces the warp affecting the product (paragraph 0004). This is also the only way that the reinforcing member can provide a reinforcing function. A reinforcing member with a lower hardness would bend to the stresses upon the aluminum base plate rather than reinforcing it.
Regarding claim 11, Osanai in view of Papich and Wakabayashi teaches
placing a plate-like reinforcing member 6 in the mold 20 at a distance from the ceramic substrate 5 (Wakabayashi figure 3),
pouring the molten aluminum alloy into the mold (Osanai paragraph 0069, Wakabayashi paragraph 0039) so as to be in contact with both surfaces of the ceramic substrate in the mold and a surface of the reinforcing member (Wakabayashi figure 3), followed by cooling (Osanai paragraph 0069, Wakabayashi paragraph 0040) and
thereby, forming the aluminum plate 2 comprising the aluminum alloy (Papich column 6, lines 39-52) on one surface of the ceramic substrate 5 and directly bonding it to the ceramic substrate (Osanai paragraph 0069, Wakabayashi paragraphs 0038 and 0039);
forming the aluminum base plate 3 comprising the aluminum alloy (Papich column 6, lines 39-52) on the other surface of the ceramic substrate (Wakabayashi figure 2) and directly bonding it to the ceramic substrate (Osanai paragraph 0069, Wakabayashi paragraph 0039); and
placing the reinforcing member 6 inside the aluminum base plate 5 and directly bonding it to the aluminum base plate (Wakabayashi paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the method of including the reinforcing member of Wakabayashi in the product of Osanai because this reduces the warp affecting the product (paragraph 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Osanai have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, including Papich, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights