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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0135706 Terasaki.
Regarding claim 1, Terasaki teaches a copper/ceramic bonded body (paragraph 0095), comprising:
a copper member 122,123 consisting of copper or a copper alloy (paragraph 0100 discussing 122 and paragraph 0101 discussing 123); and
a ceramic member 11 consisting of silicon nitride (paragraph 0099), which is bonded to the copper member (paragraph 0095),
wherein the copper member is bonded to each of one surface and the other surface of the ceramic member (figure 9),
an active metal nitride layer (intermetallic compound phase 33) is formed on a side of the ceramic member of the copper member, where in a region of 0 to 20 microns (within 20 microns) from the active metal nitride layer to a side of the copper member (paragraph 0108), an area rate of an active metal compound containing Si and an active metal is set to 5% or less (figures 13a and b showing that layer 33 is less than 1 micron thick such that 1 micron out of 0 to 20 is 5% or less), and
a ratio A1/A2 of an area rate Al of the active metal compound in the copper member bonded to a side of the one surface to an area rate A2 of the active metal compound in the copper member bonded to a side of the other surface is 1 (paragraphs 0107 and 0110-0121 discussing that the materials and bonding method on both sides is the same such that the area rates on both sides would be the same).
“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 range of 0 to 20 microns reads on the claimed range of 0 to 10 microns.
Regarding claim 4, Terasaki teaches most of the limitations with respect to claim 1 above. Terasaki further teaches an insulating circuit substrate 110 comprising a ceramic substrate 11 (paragraph 0095) and a copper sheet (paragraphs 0110 and 0111).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Terasaki teaches that a thickness ta1 of the active metal nitride layer formed on the side of the one surface of the ceramic member and a thickness ta2 of the active metal nitride layer formed on the side of the other surface of the ceramic member are set in a range of less than 1 micron (figures 13a and 13b), and
a thickness ratio ta1/ta2 is 1 (paragraphs 0107 and 0110-0121 discussing that the materials and bonding method on both sides is the same such that the thickness on both sides would be the same).
“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 range of less than 1 micron reads on the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.8 microns.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Terasaki teaches that at a bonded interface between the ceramic member and the copper member, an Ag- Cu alloy layer is formed on the side of the copper member (paragraph 0107), and
a ratio tb1/tb2 of a thickness tb1 of the Ag-Cu alloy layer formed on the side of the one surface of the ceramic member to a thickness tb2 of the Ag-Cu alloy layer formed on the side of the other surface of the ceramic member is 1 (paragraphs 0107 and 0110-0121 discussing that the materials and bonding method on both sides is the same such that the thickness on both sides would be the same).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that by controlling the cooling rate, certain benefits are achieved. However, this feature is not claimed and is irrelevant. If Applicant believes that the method leads to a structurally significant product, these steps may be claimed, but the advantages achieved need not be the same as or even acknowledged by the prior art in order to read on the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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