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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/31/2026 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamada et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0197028 A1) in view of Jeong et al. (Pub. No. : US 2022/0007542 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamada et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, comprising: preparing a ceramic substrate including an upper metal layer and a lower metal layer provided on upper and lower surfaces of a ceramic base (Par. 0016; Fig. 1A – ceramic base 1; upper metal layer 2; lower metal layer 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
420
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
preparing a heat sink provided with a flat portion and a plurality of heat dissipation fins (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A – heat sink 10A; heat dissipation fins 14 (cooling fins)); and bonding one surface of the lower metal layer to one surface of the flat portion (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A – metal layer 3), wherein in the preparing the heat sink, the plurality of heat dissipation fins are formed to protrude from the other surface of the flat portion at intervals and provided in contact with liquid refrigerant (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A – heat dissipation fins 14 (cooling fins); liquid refrigerant (Par. 0020)), wherein the bonding includes: arranging a bonding layer between the one surface of the lower metal layer and the one surface of the flat portion (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A – bonding layer 5 (joint layer); metal layer 3), and brazing the one surface of the lower metal layer to the one surface of the flat portion by melting the bonding layer (Par. 0027, Fig. 1A – this prior art clearly states “the material of the joint layer 5 is not limited to solder and can be any material that can be joined by melting at a high temperature and becoming solidified when the temperature is restored to normal temperature. A member used for the joint layer 5 may not be solder. For example, Ag paste or a conductive adhesive may be used instead. When solder made of lead-free solder is used as a material of the joint layer 5, a greater stress easing effect can be obtained by using the invention because lead-free solder has a high melting point and greater strain is applied to the edge of the joint layer 5 when the temperature is restored to normal temperature after the joint” (emphasis added); this statement clearly includes brazing as a possible means to bond one surface of the lower metal layer to the one surface of the flat portion).
Yamada et al. does not explicitly disclose a method of manufacturing a heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, wherein thicknesses of the plurality of heat dissipation fins are greater than a thickness of the flat portion, and a volume ratio obtained by dividing a total volume of the plurality of heat dissipation fins by a total volume of the flat portion is in a range of 0.9 to 1.1. However, Jeong et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, wherein thicknesses of the plurality of heat dissipation fins are greater than a thickness of the flat portion (Par. 0070-0072; Fig. 1 – this prior art teaches “[w]hen the ratio of the height of the pin fins 12 to the thickness of the base plate 11 is less than 3.5, the surface area of the pin fins 12 in contact with the coolant is small. Therefore, the heat dissipation efficiency of the composite pin fin heat sink 10 is insufficient. On the contrary, when the ratio is greater than 4.5, the base plate 11 is too thin to have a sufficient strength to stably support the pin fins 12”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Jeong et al. to adapt a method of manufacturing a heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, wherein thicknesses of the plurality of heat dissipation fins of Yamada et al. are greater than a thickness of the flat portion in order to improve heat removal efficiency.
Furthermore, Jeong et al., at least implicitly, teaches a method of manufacturing a heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, wherein a volume ratio obtained by dividing a total volume of the plurality of heat dissipation fins by a total volume of the flat portion is in a range of 0.55 to 1.1 (Par. 0020-0021, 0070-0072; Fig. 1 – this prior art teaches “… the pin fins may have a cylindrical shape having an aspect ratio of 5.5 to 7 … a ratio of the diameter of each of the pin fins to a distance between each of the pin fins may be 0.45 to 0.55 … ratio of the height of the pin fins 12 to a thickness of the base plate 11 is preferably in a range of 3.5 to 4.5”; from these data, it is estimated that the ratio is anywhere between 0.55 to 1.07; it is understood that the said volume ratio is a result-effective variable; too low a ratio would worsen heat removal efficiency; on the other hand, too high a ratio might make the heat sink potentially mechanically unstable). In summary, Jeong et al. teaches if the flat portion is too thin compared to the thickness of the heat dissipation fins, the flat portion may not be able to stably support the plurality of heat dissipation fins. Yamada et al., on the other hand, teaches that warpage of the heat sink might occur during the bonding process due to linear expansion coefficient mismatch between the heat sink and the metal layer of the ceramic substrate and/or the ceramic substrate (Par. 0004). It is well known that thinner flat portion has substantially lower resistance to bending than a thicker one. In other words, if the volume of the flat portion becomes too little compared to the total volume of the plurality of fins, it will be more susceptible to warping during the bonding/brazing process. This teaching of Yamada et al. is not at all at odds with the findings of Jeong et al. which finds if the flat portion is too thin compared to the thickness of the heat dissipation fins, the flat portion may not be able to stably support the plurality of heat dissipation fins even during processes not related to bonding. So, now, when the heat sink of Yamada et al. is modified with the teachings of Jeong et al. one would make sure that the flat portion is not too thick compared to the thickness of the plurality heat dissipations fins as it reduces heat removal efficiency. They would also make sure that the flat portion is thick enough compared to the thickness of the heat dissipation fins such that i) it is able to stably support the plurality of heat dissipation fins at all times and ii) it resists bending/warping during the bonding/brazing process.
Yamada et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the method of manufacturing a heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, wherein a volume ratio obtained by dividing a total volume of the plurality of heat dissipation fins by a total volume of the flat portion is in a range of 0.9 to 1.1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the method of manufacturing a heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, wherein a volume ratio obtained by dividing a total volume of the plurality of heat dissipation fins by a total volume of the flat portion is in a range of 0.9 to 1.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Yamada et al., as applied to claim 8, discloses the method, wherein in the arranging the bonding layer, the bonding layer is made of a material including at least one of Ag, AgCu, and AgCuTi (Yamada et al. - Par. 0027; Fig. 1A – Ag paste).
.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamada et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0197028 A1) and Jeong et al. (Pub. No. : US 2022/0007542 A1), as applied to claim 8, further in view of Nishimoto et al. (Pub. No. : US 2016/0219693 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Yamada et al., as applied to claim 10, discloses the method, wherein the arranging the bonding layer includes arranging the bonding layer by any one method of plating, paste application, and foil attachment (Par. 0027). Modified Yamada et al. does not explicitly disclose the method, wherein the arranging the bonding layer includes arranging the bonding layer having a thickness of 0.005 or more and 1.0 mm or less.
However, Nishimoto et al. teaches the method, wherein the arranging the bonding layer includes arranging the bonding layer having a thickness of 0.005 or more and 1.0 mm or less (Par. 0086; Fig. 1 – this prior art teaches that the thickness of the bonding layer 25 is between 0.005 mm to 0.05 mm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Nishimoto et al. to adapt the method, wherein the arranging the bonding layer of modified Yamada et al. includes arranging the bonding layer having a thickness of 0.005 or more and 1.0 mm or less in order to maximize the heat removal efficiency without compromising bonding effectiveness.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. Please see the rejections above which address the arguments raised by the Applicant in great detail.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
09/28/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
