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 .
Election
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 2 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both independent claim 1 (product) and independent claim 8 (method) are directed to the same inventive concept including an active metal brazing structure defined by the same essential components and parameters. This is not found persuasive because not all limitations listed in claim 8 would be required to be within the product of claim 1. For example, if the drying steps of claim 8 were omitted or performed in a different order, the product of claim 1 could still be produced. Thus, the product of claims 1-7 could be produced by a materially different method than that of claim 8. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein a brazing temperature at which the active metal needs to be heated is not greater than 900 °C ”. As written, it is unclear if the active metal is actually heated or not. It is unclear on what parameters the “need” is based or determined. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
The term “improve” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improve” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which bonding force or range of bonding forces would result in an improvement. It is unclear if the bonding force would need to be increased or decreased and by how much to be considered an improvement.
The term “tightly” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which parameters “tightly” is based on or determined. It is unclear what is required for the active metal layer to be “tightly” bonded to the conductive layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107546132 of Qian in view of US11338397 of Britting further in view of the combination of US5492771 of Lowder and EP1965423 of Sawabe further in view of the combination of WO2021044854 of Yonetsu and WO2010112342 of Bossman.
Claim 1 claims an active metal brazing substrate material, comprising: a ceramic substrate layer; an active metal layer including: a first brazing layer disposed on a side surface of the ceramic substrate layer, wherein a composition of the first brazing layer includes a first metal composite material, and the first metal composite material includes a silver (Ag) metal element, a copper (Cu) metal element, and a first active metal element; wherein, based on a total weight of the first metal composite material being 100 parts by weight, a content of the silver (Ag) metal element is not less than 50 parts by weight; and a second brazing layer disposed on a side surface of the first brazing layer away from the ceramic substrate layer, wherein a composition of the second brazing layer includes a second metal composite material, and the second metal composite material includes an aluminum (Al) metal element, a copper (Cu) metal element, and a second active metal element; wherein, based on a total weight of the second metal composite material being 100 parts by weight, a content of the aluminum (Al) metal element is not less than 40 parts by weight, and the second metal composite material does not contain any silver (Ag) metal element; wherein a sum of a thickness of the first brazing layer and a thickness of the second brazing layer is not less than 12 micrometers, and the thickness of the first brazing layer is not less than 5 micrometers; and a conductive metal layer disposed on a side surface of the second brazing layer away from the first brazing layer.
Qian teaches a manufacturing method of metal-ceramic composite substrate and composite substrate manufactured through manufacturing method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Qian discloses a ceramic substrate layer, Para[0034]. Qian also teaches an active metal layer consisting of a first brazing material layer and a second brazing material layer, Para[0035,0036,0037]. Qian teaches brazing layers with silver content ranging from 20 wt% to 72 wt%, Para[0042,0043]. This overlaps with the claimed range for the silver content in the first brazing layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. The first brazing material comprises copper, silver, and an active metal, Para[0035]. Qian also discloses a conductive metal layer disposed on the second brazing layer, Para[0041]. Qian does not teach aluminum, active metals, or zero silver in the second brazing material layer. Qian also does not teach a thickness for the brazing layer.
Britting discloses soldering material for active soldering and method for active soldering in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Britting teaches that silver is advantageously omitted from the brazing material according to the invention, whereby manufacturing costs can be reduced and silver migration can be avoided. Instead of silver, copper or a copper alloy is the main component of the soldering material. “Essentially silver-free” means in particular that the soldering material has a silver content in the range of impurities, i.e. less than 0.5 wt. %, preferably less than 0.1 wt. % and particularly preferably less than 0.05 wt. % of the soldering material, Para[0015]. Britting also disclosed that it is preferable that bonding should be performed at a soldering temperature of less than 1000°, preferably less than 900° C. and particularly preferably less than 850° C. Preferably the soldering material is designed accordingly, for example by adding an appropriate amount of active metals or companion metals to achieve the desired temperature. By soldering at low temperatures, especially below 850° C., it is possible to keep the energy consumption during soldering comparatively low, Para[0036]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Britting, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove all of the silver from the second brazing layer disclosed in Qian in order to reduce manufacturing costs, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add active metals to the second brazing layer disclosed in Qian to achieve the desired soldering temperature keeping the energy consumption during soldering low.
Lowder teaches a method of making monolayer abrasive tools in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lowder teaches an amount of aluminum of 5 wt% or more, Para[0041]. This overlaps with the claimed range for aluminum in the second brazing layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Lowder discloses that singly or in combination, aluminum, silicon, zinc, cadmium, manganese, germanium, nickel, cobalt, iron are good candidates as strengthening agents. The amounts of additions of these elements will vary considerably to accomplish the necessary strengthening without detrimentally affecting the ductility and elastic modulus but in no case mentioned would a small amount expect to be operable. In general, more than 5% by weight addition of a compatible metal would be expected to be required. Braze filler metal alloys exist commercially which are based on systems other than Cu-Ag, and which respond to the addition of an active metal to wet diamond and cubic boron nitride. Therefore, one would expect that some among these are likely to exhibit the mechanical properties described herein and may be suitable to fabricate abrasive tools which exhibit the outstanding performance observed with the Ag-Cu based systems specifically disclosed herein, Para[0041].
Sawabe teaches a method for producing a metal/ceramic bonding substrate and brazing filler metal for use therein in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sawabe teaches that if the metal plate bonded to the ceramic substrate contains elements, such as copper and aluminum, there are many cases where the brazing filler metal reacts with the elements to melt at a lower temperature than the melting point thereof when the metal plate is bonded to the ceramic substrate. In such cases, there are not the above-described problems, Para[0013].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lowder and Sawabe, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add aluminum to the second brazing layer disclosed in Qian in view of Britting to improve the strength and lower the melting temperature of the active metal brazing substrate material.
Yonetsu teaches a joined body, circuit board, and semiconductor device in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yonetsu discloses that the thickness of the bonding layer is preferably 5 μm or more and 60 μm or less. This overlaps with the claimed range for the thickness of the entire active metal layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Yonetsu teaches that if the thickness of the bonding layer is smaller than 5 μm, the unevenness on the surface of the substrate may affect the surface of the bonding layer and hinder uniform bonding between the bonding layer and the substrate. If the thickness of the bonding layer exceeds 60 μm, the function of relaxing the thermal stress when the thermal cycle is applied is insufficient, and the strength may decrease, Para[0015].
Bossman teaches a dual brazing alloy element comprising at least one first layer of an Ni-based brazing alloy and also at least one second layer with active element, process for producing said element and uses thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Bossman discloses two brazing layers, one with a thickness in the range of 3-200 µm, and the other with a thickness in the range of 50-100 µm, Para[0024, 0025]. These overlap with the claimed ranges for the thickness of the first brazing layer and the thickness of the second brazing layer, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Bossman teaches that the core of the invention therefore consists, among other things, in solving this problem by physically separating the components that lower the melting point of the solder in the Ni-based solder from the active elements, so that a melting process that is partially or completely separated spatially and/or temporally is made possible without any significant negative interaction between the components, Para[0012].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yonetsu and Bossman, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the active metal brazing substrate material disclosed in Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder further in view Sawabe with the thickness of the first brazing layer and second brazing layer taught by Yonetsu and Bossman in order to achieve uniform bonding between the bonding layer and the substrate, avoid a decrease in strength, and to separate the melting process so that there isn’t negative interaction between the components.
Thus, Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder and Sawabe further in view of Yonetsu and Bossman covers all limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-7 are also rejected as they depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that based on a total weight of all metal elements in the active metal layer being 100 wt%, a content of the aluminum (Al) metal element is between 25 wt% and 48 wt%, a content of the silver (Ag) metal element is not greater than 50 wt%, a total content of the first active metal element and the second active metal element is between 0.3 wt% and 8 wt%, and the copper (Cu) metal element is a remaining metal element.
Qian discloses a brazing filler metal using a low content of silver, 15 to 35 wt%, and a content of active metal in the range of 4 to 8 wt%, Para[0006]. This overlaps with the claimed range for silver and active metal. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Lowder teaches an amount of aluminum of 5 wt% or more, Para[0041]. This overlaps with the claimed range for aluminum in the active metal layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Lowder discloses that singly or in combination, aluminum, silicon, zinc, cadmium, manganese, germanium, nickel, cobalt, iron are good candidates as strengthening agents. The amounts of additions of these elements will vary considerably to accomplish the necessary strengthening without detrimentally affecting the ductility and elastic modulus but in no case mentioned would a small amount expect to be operable. In general, more than 5% by weight addition of a compatible metal would be expected to be required. Braze filler metal alloys exist commercially which are based on systems other than Cu-Ag, and which respond to the addition of an active metal to wet diamond and cubic boron nitride. Therefore, one would expect that some among these are likely to exhibit the mechanical properties described herein and may be suitable to fabricate abrasive tools which exhibit the outstanding performance observed with the Ag-Cu based systems specifically disclosed herein, Para[0041].
Sawabe teaches that if the metal plate bonded to the ceramic substrate contains elements, such as copper and aluminum, there are many cases where the brazing filler metal reacts with the elements to melt at a lower temperature than the melting point thereof when the metal plate is bonded to the ceramic substrate. In such cases, there are not the above-described problems, Para[0013].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lowder and Sawabe, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add aluminum, in the disclosed range, to the active metal layer disclosed in Qian in view of Britting to improve the strength and lower the melting temperature of the active metal brazing substrate material.
Thus, Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder and Sawabe further in view of Yonetsu and Bossman covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that in the active metal layer, a thickness ratio between the thickness of the first brazing layer and the thickness of the second brazing layer is 15% to 50%:50% to 85%.
Bossman discloses two brazing layers, one with a thickness in the range of 3-200 µm, and the other with a thickness in the range of 50-100 µm, Para[0024, 0025]. These ranges correspond to a thickness ratio between the thickness of the first brazing layer and the thickness of the second brazing layer of 2.9% to 80%:20% to 97.09%. These overlap with the claimed ranges for the thickness ratio between the thickness of the first brazing layer and the thickness of the second brazing layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Bossman teaches that the core of the invention therefore consists, among other things, in solving this problem by physically separating the components that lower the melting point of the solder in the Ni-based solder from the active elements, so that a melting process that is partially or completely separated spatially and/or temporally is made possible without any significant negative interaction between the components, Para[0012]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the active metal brazing substrate material taught by Qian, Britting, Lowder, Sawabe, Yonetsu, and Bossman with the thickness ratio taught by Bossman in order to separate the melting process so that there isn’t negative interaction between the components. Thus, Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder and Sawabe further in view of Yonetsu and Bossman covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the first active metal element is at least one selected from the group consisting of titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), hafnium (Hf), titanium hydride (TiH2), zirconium hydride (ZrH2), tantalum hydride (TaH2), niobium hydride (NbH), vanadium hydride (VH2), and hafnium hydride (H2Hf2); wherein the second active metal element is at least one selected from the group consisting of titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), hafnium (Hf), titanium hydride (TiH2), zirconium hydride (ZrH2), tantalum hydride (TaH2), niobium hydride (NbH), vanadium hydride (VH2),and hafnium hydride (H2Hf2).
Qian teaches that the active metal is at least one element from the group Hf, Ti, Zr, Nb, Ce, Cr, V, Y, Sc, Para[0017]. Therefore, Qian discloses the active metal element limitation. Thus, Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder and Sawabe further in view of Yonetsu and Bossman covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the ceramic substrate layer is at least one of a silicon nitride ceramic substrate, a silicon carbide ceramic substrate, an aluminum nitride ceramic substrate, and an alumina ceramic substrate, and the conductive metal layer is at least one of a metal copper foil, a metal aluminum foil, and a copper-aluminum alloy foil.
Qian teaches alumina ceramic, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, and silicon nitride ceramic substrates, Para[0004,0034]. Qian also discloses a conductive metal layer that may be formed from copper and aluminum as main components, Para[0040]. Therefore, Qian teaches the limitations of claim 5. Thus, Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder and Sawabe further in view of Yonetsu and Bossman covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming that in a high-temperature vacuum sintering process, the first active metal element of the first brazing layer is capable of wetting the side surface of the ceramic substrate layer and reacting with a ceramic material of the ceramic substrate layer, so as to improve a bonding force between the active metal layer and the ceramic substrate layer; wherein the second brazing layer undergoes a micron-scale eutectic reaction with a metal element of the conductive metal layer at an interface between the second brazing layer and the conductive metal layer for formation of a solid eutectic structure, so that the active metal layer is tightly bonded to the conductive metal layer.
Qian discloses the active metal titanium wetting the surface of the ceramic substrate, Para[0043]. Qian also teaches that the second brazing material layer and the copper layer undergo micron-order eutectic reaction at the interface, and the metal layer The combination is tight, Para[0017]. Thus, Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder and Sawabe further in view of Yonetsu and Bossman covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107546132 of Qian in view of US11338397 of Britting further in view of the combination of US5492771 of Lowder and EP1965423 of Sawabe further in view of the combination of WO2021044854 of Yonetsu and WO2010112342 of Bossman, taken as cited above, and still further in view of WO2021200242 of Ozaki.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a brazing temperature at which the active metal layer needs to be heated is not greater than 900°C; wherein, through brazing of the active metal layer, a peeling strength between the ceramic substrate layer and the conductive metal layer is not less than 50 N/cm.
Qian teaches vacuum sintering in the temperature range of 700 °C – 1000 °C, Para[0045]. Qian also discloses a peeling strength of 50 N/cm, Para[0076]. This overlaps with the claimed 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, see MPEP 2144.05.
Britting teaches a temperature range of less than 850° C. Preferably the soldering material is designed accordingly, for example by adding an appropriate amount of active metals or companion metals to achieve the desired temperature. By soldering at low temperatures, especially below 850° C., it is possible to keep the energy consumption during soldering comparatively low, Para[0036]. Therefore, based on the teaching of Qian and Britting, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sinter the active metal brazing substrate below a temperature of 900 °C in order to keep the energy consumption during soldering low. Thus, Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder and Sawabe further in view of Yonetsu and Bossman covers the temperature limitation of claim 6.
Ozaki teaches a brazing material, method for producing same, and method for producing metal-ceramics bonded substrate in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ozaki discloses a peeling strengths of 160 N/cm, 196 N/cm, and 247 N/cm, Para[0068, 0070, 0072]. These lie within the claimed 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, see MPEP 2144.05. Ozaki teaches that the present invention provides a brazing material and a method for manufacturing the same, and a method for manufacturing a metal-ceramic substrate, which makes it possible to sufficiently reduce bonding defects even in a large metal-ceramic bonding substrate having a large area of such a bonding region, Para[0009]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Qian, and Ozaki, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the active metal brazing substrate disclosed in Qian, Britting, Lowder, Sawabe, Yonetsu, and Bossman with the peeling strength taught by Qian, Britting, and Ozaki in order to sufficiently reduce bonding defects. Thus, Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder and Sawabe further in view of Yonetsu and Bossman further in view of Ozaki covers the temperature limitation of claim 6.
Therefore, Qian in view of Britting further in view of Lowder and Sawabe further in view of Yonetsu and Bossman further in view of Ozaki covers all the limitations of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733