Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/284,970

METHOD OF MANUFACTURING POWER MODULE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Examiner
PATEL, DEVANG R
Art Unit
1735
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Amosense Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
660 granted / 1014 resolved
At TC average
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
1075
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.5%
+14.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1014 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/25 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 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizuka (JP 2015-170825-A, of record) in view of Satoh et al. (US 5219794, hereafter “Satoh”) & Dionne et al. (US 11363725, hereafter “Dionne”). Regarding claim 1, Ishizuka discloses a method of manufacturing a power module (figs. 1-4), the method comprising: preparing a base plate 20 (heat radiating plate); disposing a brazing filler layer (not shown in figure) on an upper surface of the base plate [0031]; laminating a ceramic substrate 10 on the base plate 20 (fig. 2b, [0024-0026]) and disposing the laminated ceramic substrate & the base plate 20 between an upper jig 110A and a lower jig 110B (fig. 3); pressurizing the base plate and the ceramic substrate by adjusting a gap distance between the upper jig and the lower jig; and brazing the brazing filler layer (Al-10% Si brazing material) through melting (braze temperature of about 580-620 °C) [0031]. Ishizuka does not disclose the upper jig or lower jig having a groove. However, such feature is known in the art. Satoh (directed to method of bonding semiconductor chip to a substrate- abstract) discloses a bonding/sealing jig comprising lower & upper jigs 17-18 configured to accommodate package substrate 2 and chip 5, wherein the upper jig 18 has a first groove formed on one surface thereof, provided to surround an outer side surface of the substrate 2, and wherein the lower jig 17 has a second groove formed on one surface thereof, provided to surround an outer side surface of the chip 5 and base 6 (figs. 5-6). Satoh also teaches that the upper jig 18 provides pressure to the substrate using weights 19 (fig. 5; col. 5, lines 22-37). Similarly, Dionne (directed to fixture for holding parts during semiconductor assembly- Background) teaches a jig/fixture 15 (clamping assembly) comprising lower & upper jigs configured to accommodate workpiece objects 20-30 (substrate), wherein the upper jig 10 has a first groove provided to surround an outer side surface of the part 20, and wherein the lower jig 40 has a second groove formed provided to surround an outer side surface of the PCB substrate 30 (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 15-20). The jigs 10 & 40 provides clamping force to the hold the part 20 and PCB substrate 30 in desired position during a reflow process (col. 4, lines 27-30). Given teachings of Satoh & Dionne, artisan of ordinary skill would appreciate and understand that a groove or recess in the jig can be suitably selected based on the type/design of substrate/workpiece so as to assist to better support the workpieces. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide respective groove portion in the upper & lower jigs 110 of Ishizuka with a motivation to hold the substrate or workpieces in a desired position and providing improved retention during joining or laminating, as shown by Satoh & Dionne. As to claim 2, Ishizuka shows that in the step of disposing between the upper jig and the lower jig, a plurality of fastening holes (pillar 111 goes through holes- fig. 3) are formed at edges of the upper jig and the lower jig. Although Ishizuka does not mention a plurality of insertion holes formed in the base plate, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to provide insertion holes around an edge of the base plate and/or substrate so as to align them with the jig holes because doing so would enable to securely fasten the base plat/substrate between the upper jig and the lower jig in stacked arrangement during the bonding process in Ishizuka (fig. 3). As to claim 3, Ishizuka discloses that in the step of pressurizing the base plate 20 and the ceramic substrate 10, bolts 111 (pillars) are screw-fastened through the fastening holes of the upper & lower jig (fig. 3). Additionally, nuts 113 and urging means 115 (springs) allow for adjustment of the pressure plates in the manufacturing process, wherein gap/distance between the upper & lower jigs [0029-0030]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fasten through the holes and adjustment by the bolts/nuts in order to control the gap between the jigs and apply necessary pressure during the bonding process in Ishizuka (fig. 3). As to claim 10, Ishizuka discloses that the base plate 20 is composed of an AlSiC composite material [0024]. As to claim 11, Ishizuka discloses that the upper jig 110A and the lower jig 110B are made of stainless steel material (SUS) [0027]. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizuka in view of Satoh & Dionne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR-20170060523-A, “Lee”, of record). As to claim 7, Ishizuka is silent with respect to thickness of the brazing filler layer. However, such feature is known in the art. Lee (also directed to ceramic substrate manufacturing by brazing- abstract, background) discloses a brazing furnace 1 comprising upper & lower jigs 2/3 to accommodate ceramic substrate and base plate (figs. 3, 7; [0057]). Lee teaches forming a brazing filler layer 31 of 10µm or less by paste application (figs. 2-3; [0049-0050]), which falls within the claimed range of more than 5 µm and less than 100 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 Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a similar brazing filler layer in the method of Ishizuka in order to join the base plate and the ceramic substrate. As to claim 8, Lee teaches that the brazing filler layer is made of an Ag-cu alloy [0052], which meets material including at least one of Ag, Cu or AgCu. Examiner maintains official notice that Sn-based and Ag-based braze alloys are common knowledge within purview of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, one would have found it obvious to select AgCu alloy as the brazing filler in the method of Ishizuka since such composition is conventionally known for brazing. As to claim 9, Lee teaches the brazing layer formed of a mixture of Ag & Cu contains 65-75% Ag and 35-25% Cu by weight- this enables the effective brazing process to be performed by controlling the heating temperature withing the brazing furnace to about 860°C, which falls within the claimed range of 780°C to 900°C [0091]. Lee discloses that the brazing step generally includes heating to about 800-900°C [0056], which overlaps with recited range. 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 Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform heating within range of about 800-900°C in order to melt the filler alloy in the brazing method of Ishizuka, Satoh, Dionne & Lee. Response to Amendment and Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Specifically, current 103 rejection now also relying upon disclosures of Satoh and Dionne addresses matter concerning groove in the upper and lower jigs. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free). /DEVANG R PATEL/ Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 27, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599020
ELECTRONIC COMPONENT BONDING MACHINES, AND METHODS OF MEASURING A DISTANCE ON SUCH MACHINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595527
STEEL WIRE FOR MACHINE STRUCTURAL PARTS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594620
INSTRUMENTED TOOL HANDLER FOR FRICTION STIR WELDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588536
WEDGE BONDING TOOLS AND METHODS OF FORMING WIRE BONDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569930
FRICTION STIR WELDING TOOL ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.4%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1014 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