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 .
Claim and Specification Status
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 in the Applicant’s response dated 10 March 2026. The claim amendments have been addressed below.
The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 9, 13 and 14 in the Applicant’s response dated 10 March 2026.
The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 9, 13 and the amendment to claim 1 in the Applicant’s response dated 10 March 2026 in lieu of the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection presented in the previous office action. The U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is therefore withdrawn.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 in the Applicant’s response dated 10 March 2026 in lieu of the drawing objection presented in the previous office action. The drawing objection is therefore withdrawn.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the specification in the Applicant’s response dated 10 March 2026 in lieu of the objection to the abstract presented in the previous office action. The objection to the abstract is therefore withdrawn.
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 1-8, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank D. Egitto et al. (US 2008/0014409 A1; hereinafter “Egitto”) in view of Alexander Rogg et al. (US 2020/0098696 A1; hereinafter “Rogg”).
Regarding Claim 1, Egitto teaches a method of manufacturing a metal-ceramic substrate, comprising:
providing a ceramic element (32, Fig. 4, para [0026] describes wherein a substrate of the present invention, such as substrate 32, may be a ceramic substrate) and at least one metal layer (36, Fig. 4, para [0026] describes wherein a conductive layer of the present invention, such as conductive layer 36, may be a metal layer), wherein the ceramic element and the at least one metal layer extend along a main extension plane (MEP, annotated Fig. 4 depicts a main extension plane MEP from which a ceramic element 32 and conductive layer 6 extend along); and
bonding the ceramic element to the at least one metal layer to form a metal-ceramic substrate (para [0008] describes wherein a metal conductive layer is blanket deposited on the ceramic substrate),
wherein a structuring for forming an insulation of metal sections (54 and 56, Fig. 7, para [0033] describes a process for forming an insulation of metal sections 54 and 56 from the at least one metal layer 36) is realized in the at least one metal layer by means of a laser process and a chemical process (para [0031] and para [0033] describe a laser and chemical etching process forming a structure of the metal layer 36 comprising metal sections 54 and 56).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Egitto fails to explicitly disclose a method of manufacturing a metal-ceramic substrate comprising a laser process characterized in that an ultrashort pulse laser with a pulse duration of 0.1 to 800 ps is used in the laser process.
However, Rogg teaches a similar method of manufacturing a metal-ceramic substrate comprising a laser process (3 and 4, Fig. 1, para [0090] describes a p-sec laser process which may create a laser scribing line 4 wherein para [0134] and para [0135] describe that the p-sec laser process can be used process the metal coating 3 in the same manner as described for the laser scribe line 4 in the substrate 2) characterized in that an ultrashort pulse laser with a pulse duration of 0.1 to 800 ps is used in the laser process (para [0090] describes a p-sec laser process may have a pulse duration of preferably 1 ps to 30 ps wherein 1 ps to 30 ps falls within the ultrashort pulse laser duration range of 0.1 to 800 ps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Egitto with Rogg to further disclose a method of manufacturing a metal-ceramic substrate which provides a laser process with an ultrashort pulse laser duration in the range of 0.1 ps to 800 ps in order to provide the advantage of preventing laser splash and laser dust from forming on a surface of a substrate which could result in undesirable effects and reduced reliability in further processing steps of the metal-ceramic substrate (Rogg, para [0090]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Egitto and Rogg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein treating with the chemical process is terminated after finishing the laser process (Egitto, Fig. 7, para [0033] describes a wet chemical etching process which is terminated following the laser process described in para [0032] and Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Egitto and Rogg teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein treating by means of the laser process is carried out as a preparatory step in time before the chemical process (Egitto, Fig. 6, para [0032] describes wherein a portion of conductive layer 36 is laser etched to form an interim sidewall 46 preceding the further chemical etching step which forms the sidewall 48 of the opening 52).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Egitto and Rogg teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein by the chemical process, a removal of metal is effected (Egitto, Fig. 7, para [0033] describes a wet chemical etch which removes portions of the interim sidewall 46 through a chemical etching process), with which a region of the outer side of the ceramic element is exposed (Egitto, 34, Fig. 7, para [0033] describes wherein a bottom wall of the opening is defined by an upper surface 34 of ceramic element 32 wherein said opening exposes an outer side of the ceramic element at said upper surface).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Egitto and Rogg teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the chemical process and the laser process are carried out simultaneously at least intermittently (Egitto, Fig. 4-7, para [0029] – para [0033] describes depositing a negative acting photoresist 40 on the conductive layer as shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, wherein the photoresist undergoes a chemical change and is present during a laser processing step as shown in Fig. 6, wherein such processes are occurring simultaneously at least intermittently wherein a further chemical process occurs in Fig. 7 during an etching process so that a sequence of chemical, laser, and then chemical processes occur intermittently).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Egitto and Rogg teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a geometry of a lateral surface of the at least one metal layer that is not parallel to the main extension plane is determined at least in sections by means of the laser process (Egitto, 46, annotated Fig. 6, para [0032] describes wherein a laser process forms interim sidewall 46 which has at least a portion not parallel PW to the main extension plain MEP).
PNG
media_image2.png
378
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Egitto and Rogg teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the manufactured lateral surface is diagonal and/or curved and/or stepped and/or segmented (Egitto, 46, annotated Fig. 6 displays wherein at least a portion of the manufactured lateral surface 46 is curved CS).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Egitto and Rogg teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a space between two mutually insulated and adjacent metal sections has an aspect ratio greater than 1 (Egitto, 52, Fig. 7, para [0027] and para [0033] describe wherein an opening between two adjacent metal sections may have a width of approximately 125 microns and wherein conductive layer 36 may have a height of approximately 8 microns wherein a resulting aspect ratio would be approximately 125:8 or 15.625).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Egitto and Rogg teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a recess having a depth dimensioned perpendicular to the main extension plane is produced by means of laser light (Egitto, 46, Fig. 6, para [0032] describes an interim sidewall 46 forming a recess wherein the recess is formed through a laser light etching and has a depth dimension perpendicular to the main extension plane MEP as defined in defined in annotated Fig. 4), wherein a ratio of a maximum depth of the recess to a thickness of the at least one metal layer has a ratio between 0.7 and 0.99 (para [0032] describes wherein a depth of the thickness of the interim sidewall may be about 50% to 95% of the thickness of the conductive layer wherein a 95% thickness of the recess would result in a ratio of a maximum depth of the recess to the at least one metal layer to be 0.95).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Egitto and Rogg teaches the metal-ceramic substrate produced by a method according to claim 1 (Egitto, 45, Fig. 7, para [0033] describes a circuitized substrate 45 that is a result of the method according to claim 1).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank D. Egitto et al. (US 2008/0014409 A1; hereinafter “Egitto”) in view of Alexander Rogg et al. (US 2020/0098696 A1; hereinafter “Rogg”) and in further view of Fabian Hierstetter et al. (DE 102013104739 A1; hereinafter “Hierstetter”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Egitto and Rogg discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Egitto and Rogg fail to disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the formation of the structuring and/or recess is additionally supported by mechanical treating
However, Hierstetter teaches a similar method of manufacturing a metal-ceramic substrate wherein the formation of the structuring and/or recess is additionally supported by mechanical treating (PE2E English Machine Translation page 8 describes a mechanical surface treatment used to produce a step-like edge or trough-like recess in the metallization layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Egitto and Rogg with Hierstetter to further disclose a method of manufacturing a metal-ceramic substrate which includes an additional mechanical treatment to provide the advantage of providing a stepped shape resulting in a process which increases the strength of connection between a surrounding material layer and a metal film layer (Hierstetter, PE2E English Machine Translation page 6).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Egitto and Rogg discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Egitto and Rogg fail to disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one metal layer has a thickness that is greater than 1 mm.
However, Hierstetter teaches a similar method of manufacturing a metal-ceramic substrate wherein the at least one metal layer has a thickness that is greater than 1 mm (PE2E English Machine Translation page 5 describes wherein a metallization layer comprised of aluminum may have a thickness between 0.1 mm and 25 mm wherein a thickness of 25 mm is greater than 1 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Egitto and Rogg with Hierstetter to further disclose a method of manufacturing a metal-ceramic substrate which provides a metallization layer that is greater than 1 mm to provide the well-known advantage of enabling a device to be comprised of multiple different metals including choosing between copper or aluminum providing a lower manufacturing cost and enabling diversity in element choices during the manufacturing process (Hierstetter, PE2E English Machine Translation page 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-12 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ALEXANDER M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571(272)-1864. 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.
/ALEXANDER MICHAEL MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights