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 .
Claims 11-28 are pending
Claim 28 is withdrawn
Claims 11-27 are under consideration
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 11-27 in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/17/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 initially refers to features A1 and A2 as a first “portion” and a second “portion,” but subsequently refers to the same features as first “sections” and second “sections.” Claim 11 further recites “wherein a second depth (T2) is realized” after previously introducing the second depth (T2). Applicant is required to use consistent terminology and grammatical form.
Claim 18 refers to singular “the first section (A1)” and “the second section (A2)” as alternating periodically, although periodic alternation appears to involve a plurality of first and second sections. Applicant is required to clarify the recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 initially recites “forming a predetermined breaking point in the metal-ceramic substrate,” thereby introducing a single predetermined breaking point. Claim 11 subsequently recites that “the first sections (A1) and the second sections (A2) are realized outside crossing points of two predetermined breaking points.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “two predetermined breaking points.” It is unclear whether the method requires forming one predetermined breaking point or at least two predetermined breaking points, and it is further unclear whether the recited first and second sections form part of one or both of the two predetermined breaking points. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are unclear.
Although claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above, for purposes of examination and to advance prosecution, claim 11 is interpreted as requiring at least two predetermined breaking points that cross one another, wherein each predetermined breaking point includes first sections having the first depth and second sections having the second depth, and wherein the first and second sections are located outside the crossing points of the two predetermined breaking points.
For purposes of examination and to advance prosecution, claim 11 is interpreted as requiring at least two predetermined breaking points that cross one another, wherein each predetermined breaking point includes first sections having the first depth and second sections having the second depth, and wherein the first and second sections are located outside the crossing point of the two predetermined breaking points.
Claims 12–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend, directly or indirectly, from indefinite claim 11. The additional limitations recited in claims 12–27 do not resolve the indefiniteness discussed above with respect to claim 11.
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.
Claims 11-17 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Küfner (DE 10 2013 104 055 B4) in view of Teshima et al. (US 2011/0177292 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Küfner teaches a method for forming a predetermined breaking point in a metal-ceramic substrate (predetermined breaking lines 6a-6f are introduced into ceramic layer 3 of base substrate 1 for separating the base substrate into individual metal-ceramic substrates 2; paragraphs [0006], [0020], [0030]). Küfner teaches wherein the predetermined breaking point has at least a first portion in which a first depth is realized and a second portion in which a second depth different from the first depth is realized (predetermined breaking lines 6a-6f have a first depth T1 and a different second depth T2, and the depth T1, T2 can be controlled in sections; paragraphs [0014], [0038], [0043]-[0047]). Küfner further teaches crossing points of two predetermined breaking points (predetermined breaking lines 6a-6f intersect one another in crossing regions K1-K9; paragraphs [0036]-[0042]).
Küfner does not expressly teach that the first section and the second section having the different first and second depths are realized outside the crossing points, with the respective depths extending along respective lengths of the predetermined breaking point.
Teshima teaches a continuous dividing groove having respective longitudinal portions of different depths (scribe groove 21 includes a reference-depth portion and shallow groove portions 214, wherein the shallow groove portions may be formed at an arbitrarily selected part of the scribe groove, including at a midway position, and the groove depth may be varied by varying the output power of the laser; paragraphs [0054]-[0056], [0062]-[0063]). Teshima further teaches that the reference-depth portion permits intentional division while the shallower groove portions provide resistance to unintended division (paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Küfner such that portions outside the crossing regions include a first section having a first depth over a first length and a second section having a different second depth over a second length because Teshima teaches providing reference-depth and shallower portions along a scribe groove to permit intentional division while providing resistance to unintended division, and use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III(C).
Regarding claim 12, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Teshima further teaches groove depths that result in a ratio of the first depth (T1) to the second depth (T2) between 0.2 and 0.8 (Example 6 of Table 1 reports an average smallest groove depth of 0.041 mm and an average largest groove depth of 0.086 mm, corresponding to a calculated ratio of 0.041/0.086 = approximately 0.477, which is within the claimed range; paragraph [0068], Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Teshima further teaches groove depths that result in a ratio of the first depth (T1) to the second depth (T2) between 0.3 and 0.7 (Example 6 of Table 1 reports an average smallest groove depth of 0.041 mm and an average largest groove depth of 0.086 mm, corresponding to a calculated ratio of 0.041/0.086 = approximately 0.477, which is within the claimed range; paragraph [0068], Table 1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Teshima further teaches groove depths that result in a ratio of the first depth (T1) to the second depth (T2) between 0.4 and 0.6 (Example 6 of Table 1 reports an average smallest groove depth of 0.041 mm and an average largest groove depth of 0.086 mm, corresponding to a calculated ratio of 0.041/0.086 = approximately 0.477, which is within the claimed range; paragraph [0068], Table 1).
Regarding claims 15-17, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Küfner teaches that a portion of a predetermined breaking line having the first depth T1 extends over a selected longitudinal length L of 0.2 mm to 20 mm, with respective partial lengths TL of 0.1 mm to 10 mm extending from the intersection point, and further teaches selecting the length L for respective intersection regions (paragraphs [0039], [0050]). Küfner further teaches that the transition between the first-depth region T1 and the second-depth region T2 may be continuous or step-like (paragraph [0052]).
Modified Küfner does not expressly teach wherein a quotient of the first length (L1) and the second length (L2) is less than 1.5, less than 0.5, or less than 0.25, as respectively recited in claims 15-17.
Teshima further teaches that the shape and dimensions of the shallow groove sections may be defined by taking into consideration the strength and thickness of the sintered board, the reference depth, and the length of the groove to be formed, and that the groove-depth difference may likewise be selected according to the strength and thickness of the board, the reference depth, and the length of the scribe groove (paragraphs [0056], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative longitudinal dimensions of the first-depth and second-depth sections of the modified method of Küfner, including selecting quotients L1/L2 of less than 1.5, less than 0.5, or less than 0.25, because Küfner and Teshima recognize the longitudinal dimensions of the different-depth groove portions as selectable parameters associated with the geometry and breaking behavior of the substrate, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Teshima further teaches wherein the predetermined breaking point has a depth in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the predetermined breaking point (scribe groove 21 extends longitudinally along the ceramic substrate and has a groove depth measured from the substrate surface into the ceramic substrate, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the scribe groove; paragraphs [0056], [0060]-[0062], [0068], Figs. 3-6). Thus, the disclosed groove depth corresponds to the recited third depth (T3).
Regarding claim 20, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above. Modified Küfner further teaches wherein the third depth is different from the first depth (T1) and/or the second depth (T2) (predetermined breaking lines have different first and second depths T1 and T2; paragraphs [0014], [0018], [0020], [0038]). Because T1 and T2 are different from one another, a groove depth corresponding to one of T1 or T2 is necessarily different from at least the other depth.
Under BRI, “different from the first depth and/or the second depth” requires the third depth to differ from at least one of the first and second depths and does not require a third depth distinct from both T1 and T
Regarding claim 21, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Küfner further teaches wherein the predetermined breaking point has a trapezoidal shape in a plane running parallel to the direction (V) (the predetermined breaking line includes a first-depth region T1 extending over a longitudinal length L and second-depth regions T2, wherein the transition between the first-depth region T1 and the second-depth region T2 may have a linear cross-sectional profile; paragraphs [0039], [0052]). In a longitudinal plane extending along the predetermined breaking line, the deeper T1 region and linear transitions to the shallower T2 regions define a trapezoidal profile.
Regarding claim 22, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Küfner further teaches wherein the predetermined breaking point is produced by machining using laser light (predetermined breaking lines 6a-6f are introduced into ceramic layer 3 by means of a laser device, wherein material removal produced by the laser beam forms the predetermined breaking lines; paragraphs [0020], [0022], [0044]-[0047]). Küfner further teaches wherein, in the course of forming the predetermined breaking point, the metal-ceramic substrate is subjected to a temperature treatment before machining, during the machining, and/or after the machining (the base substrate is heated along predetermined fracture lines 6a-6f to a process temperature below the melting temperature of the substrate and metallizations, and a coolant jet is subsequently applied along the predetermined fracture lines to produce a controlled material cut by a thermally induced mechanical stress difference; paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 22 as discussed above. Küfner further teaches wherein the laser light is generated by an ultrashort-pulse laser (the laser device used to form the predetermined breaking lines may be an ultrashort-pulse laser, including a picosecond laser; paragraphs [0022], [0044]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 22 as discussed above. Küfner further teaches wherein, after the machining, a cooling is performed (after the predetermined breaking lines are formed by laser machining, the base substrate may be heated along predetermined breaking lines 6a-6f and subsequently subjected to a coolant jet to produce a controlled material cut by a thermally induced mechanical stress difference; paragraphs [0044]-[0047], [0053]).
Regarding claims 25-27, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above.
Modified Küfner does not expressly teach wherein the cooling is performed at a cooling rate of less than 4 °C/min, less than 2 °C/min, or less than 0.5 °C/min, as respectively recited in claims 25-27. Küfner teaches heating the base substrate along the predetermined breaking lines to a process temperature below the melting temperature of the substrate and metallizations and subsequently applying a coolant jet to the predetermined breaking lines to produce a controlled material cut by a thermally induced mechanical stress difference (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the cooling rate used in the modified method of Küfner, including selecting cooling rates of less than 4 °C/min, less than 2 °C/min, or less than 0.5 °C/min, because Küfner teaches intentionally cooling the heated substrate to generate a thermally induced mechanical stress difference for controlled material separation, such that the cooling rate would have been a process condition affecting the resulting thermal stress, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Küfner in view of Teshima, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yoshiike (JP 2013-125855 A) machine translation provided used for citations.
Regarding claim 18, modified Küfner teaches the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Modified Küfner does not expressly teach wherein the first section (A1) and the second section (A2) alternate periodically.
Yoshiike teaches first and second portions having different depths that alternate along the extending direction of a breaking groove (the low-strength first portion and high-strength second portion are alternately arranged along the extending direction of groove 10; paragraph [0017]). Yoshiike further teaches periodically changing the energy of the laser light and/or the focal position so that the processing depth changes periodically along the groove (paragraph [0051]), and repeatedly changing between slower and faster laser movement while scanning along the groove to form alternating deeper and shallower portions of a sawtooth-shaped bottom surface (paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified method of Küfner such that the first section (A1) and the second section (A2) alternate periodically because Yoshiike teaches alternately arranging portions of different depth along the extending direction of a breaking groove to provide both ease of handling and ease of division, and use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights