DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 16 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 8-10 have been withdrawn. No new claim(s) have been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 18 March 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107546132 (machine translation) 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 (machine translation) of Yonetsu and WO2010112342 (machine translation) of Bossman.
Regarding claim 1, 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, Lowder, and 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, 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; 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 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 (machine translation) 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 (machine translation) of Yonetsu and WO2010112342 (machine translation) of Bossman, taken as cited above, and still further in view of WO2021200242 (machine translation) of Ozaki.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a brazing temperature of the active metal 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 strength 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 9 of 13) the cited references do not disclose the claimed second brazing layer because Qian’s second brazing material remains a silver containing Cu-Ag layer and is not an Ag-free Al-Cu-active metal layer. This is not found persuasive as one of ordinary skill in the art would find removing Ag and adding active metals to the second layer as an obvious teaching of Britting, and adding aluminum to the brazing layer as an obvious teaching of Lowder and Sawabe as explained in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 9 of 13) Britting teaches a single copper based material and not a dual layer active metal brazing sheet. This argument is moot as Britting is relied upon for its teachings of removing silver for cost reduction. Qian discloses a silver rich first brazing layer and a second brazing layer. Thus, Qian in view of Britting does cover a dual layer active metal brazing structure with an Ag-free second layer.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 10 of 13) Lowder does not explicitly describe an AMB substrate structure, nor does it describe a second brazing layer. This argument is moot as Lowder is relied upon for its teachings of aluminum as a strengthening agent. The AMB structure and the second brazing layer are disclosed by Qian. Thus, Qian in view of Britting and Lowder cover the AMB structure with a second brazing layer containing Aluminum.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 10 of 13) Sawabe does not disclose the claimed second metal composite material containing Al, Cu, and second active metal element, with Al and no Ag. This argument is moot as Sawabe is relied upon for its teaching of aluminum as an element that lowers the melt temperature. The second metal composite material is disclosed by Qian, Britting, and Lowder. Thus, Qian in view of Britting, Lowder, and Sawabe covers the claimed second metal composite material.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 11 of 13) Yonetsu is directed to a single bonding layer and its microstructure rather than a dual layer active metal brazing layer. This argument is moot as Qian and Bossman teach a dual layer active metal brazing layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to consider the teachings of Yonetsu in the context of the dual layer active metal brazing layer taught by Qian and Bossman. Thus, Qian in view of Britting, Lowder, Sawabe, and Yonetsu covers the claimed dual layer active metal brazing layer including its layer thicknesses.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 11 of 13) Bossman does not disclose Al-Cu active metal second brazing layer having Al not less than 40 parts by weight and no Ag. This argument is moot as Bossman is relied upon for its teachings of layer thickness. Lowder and Sawabe teach aluminum in the claimed range, and Britting teaches the removal of Ag. Thus, Qian in view of Britting, Lowder, Sawabe, Yonetsu, and Bossman cover the second brazing layer with the claimed amounts of Al and Ag.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 12 of 13) Ozaki does not disclose a dual-layer structure having an Ag-free, Al-rich second brazing layer containing Al, Cu, and a second active metal element. This argument is moot as Ozaki is relied upon for its teachings of peeling strength. Qian discloses a silver rich first brazing layer and a second brazing layer, Lowder and Sawabe teach aluminum in the claimed range, and Britting teaches the removal of Ag. Thus, Qian in view of Britting, Lowder, Sawabe, Yonetsu, Bossman and Ozaki cover the second brazing layer with the claimed amounts of Al and Ag.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has attached previously-cited foreign referenced that were inadvertently omitted in the non-final action. References Included herein: CN107546132, EP1965423, WO2021044854, WO2010112342, WO2021200242
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 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
Prosecution Insights