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 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 1, 4-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamada et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0197028 A1), as applied to claim 1 and claim 8, further in view of Jeong et al. (Pub. No. : US 2022/0007542 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada et al. discloses a heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate comprising: 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); and a heat sink bonded to one surface of the lower metal layer (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A – heat sink 10A; metal layer 3), wherein the heat sink includes:
PNG
media_image1.png
420
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a flat portion having one surface in contact with the lower metal layer (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A); and a plurality of heat dissipation fins formed to protrude from the other surface of the flat portion at intervals and in contact with liquid refrigerant (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A – heat dissipation fins 14 (cooling fins); liquid refrigerant (Par. 0020)). Yamada et al. does not explicitly disclose the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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). Yamada et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the 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 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 4, Yamada et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, wherein the plurality of heat dissipation fins are disposed in an external refrigerant circulation unit (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A – refrigerant circulation unit 20 (water jacket)), and the liquid refrigerant circulating through the refrigerant circulation unit exchanges heat with the plurality of heat dissipation fins (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, wherein the plurality of heat dissipation fins are provided in at least one shape of a quadrangular pillar, a cylinder, a polygonal pillar, a teardrop shape, or a diamond shape (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A – polygonal pillar).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, wherein a material of the heat sink is any one of Cu, Al, and a Cu alloy (Par. 0019, 0026 – Al, or Cu).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamada et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the heat sink-integrated ceramic substrate, further comprising a bonding layer disposed between the lower metal layer of the ceramic substrate and the flat portion of the heat sink (Par. 0016-0020; Fig. 1A – bonding layer 5 (joint layer)), and wherein the bonding layer is made of a material including at least one of Ag, AgCu, and AgCuTi. (Par. 0027; Fig. 1A – Ag paste).
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)). 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). 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 10, Yamada et al., as applied to claim 8, discloses the method, 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).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamada et al., as applied to claim 10, 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 (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 10, further in view of Nishimoto et al. (Pub. No. : US 2016/0219693 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, 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). 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 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 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. Please see the rejections above.
The Applicant argues
“The dimensional ratios disclosed in Jeong are merely design variables considered for improving heat dissipation performance, and are not design variables for suppressing warpage that may occur when a ceramic substrate and a heat sink are brazed together.
The Office Action takes the position, based on In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955),
that optimizing the volume ratio to be within the range of 0.9 to 1.1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. However, for the rationale of In re Aller to apply, the prior art should address the same variable for the same purpose.
The dimensional ratios of dare design variables for improving heat dissipation
performance, whereas the volume ratio of 0.9 to 1.1 in the amended claims 1 and 8 is a configuration for a completely different technical purpose, namely suppressing warpage during
brazing.
Ultimately, since the intended technical effects are fundamentally different, the
dimensional ratios of Jeong and the volume ratio of the amended claims 1 and 8 cannot be regarded as the same optimization variable. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that there is sufficient reason to reconsider the position that the dimensional ratio of amended claims 1 and 8 would have been obvious based on the rationale of In re Aller” (emphasis added by the Examiner).
The Examiner’s rebuttal: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants argument. Firstly, the Applicant has not recited the process of brazing in claim 1 or in claim 8. So, when claim 1 or claim 8 recites, “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”, there is no suggestion that the ratio is applicable only for the process of brazing or to prevent the warpage during the process of brazing. Secondly, Jeong et al. already teaches a range which overlaps with the range taught by the Applicant to a great extent. Thirdly, this prior art teaches that if the volume ratio is too high, i.e. the base plate is too thin, it would not be able to support the fins stably (Jeong et al. - Par. 0071). In other words, the base plate will warp. So as Jeong et al. is providing the range of volume ratio that is workable, he is very much cognizant about the effect of warpage and optimizing the ratio such that the warpage does not occur.
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 extension fee 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 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.
05/28/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights