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/Restrictions
Claims 1 – 20, 22, 29 – 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions I, II and IV as well as non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim (for all claims). Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/01/2026.
Applicant’s election of Invention III and Species CI in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nilsson (US 2010/00133697 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Nilsson (US 2010/00133697 A1) discloses a ceramic (sintered compact) substrate (Fig 4f) comprising: a ceramic ([0052] “glass ceramics”) substrate (3) having a first surface (4; upper surface of 3) and a second surface (5; lower surface of 3) opposite to the first surface, the ceramic substrate (3) being provided with a through hole (9; [0049]) penetrating through the ceramic substrate (3) such that the through hole (9) connects the first surface (4) and the second surface (5), and the ceramic substrate (3) being provided with, in the first surface (at upper surface), a first recessed portion (portion or region or area about or above 20; note that the claim has not structurally limited nor defined a periphery of this claimed portion) being larger in hole diameter (9 is a hole having width in the left-right direction of Fig 4f where the diameter of 9 at 23 is smaller than the diameter at portions of 9 at the upper and lower surfaces of 3) than the through hole and connected to the through hole (9); and a metal member (25,7; [0064]) disposed in the first recessed portion and the through hole, wherein a connection portion (portion or region about 23) between the through hole and an inner surface (11) defining the first recessed portion has roundness ([0060] “rounded constriction”) in cross-sectional view (see Fig 4f) in a thickness direction of the through hole (9).
Claim states a “sintered” but “sintered” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the substrate is formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of sintering and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “ceramic sintered compact”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of ceramic sintered compact substrate.
Regarding Claim 23, Nilsson further discloses the ceramic (sintered compact) substrate (Fig 4f) according to claim 21, wherein the roundness is annularly formed (see Fig 4f showing 23 at both sides of the cross-section; see also Fig 12a-12b showing an analogous overhead view of an array of vias 7 having annular circumferences) along the through hole (9).
Claim states a “sintered” but “sintered” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the substrate is formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of sintering and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “ceramic sintered compact”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of ceramic sintered compact substrate.
Regarding Claim 25, Nilsson further discloses the ceramic (sintered compact) substrate (Fig 4f) according to claim 21, wherein the first recessed portion (portion or region or area about or above 20; note that the claim has not structurally limited nor defined a periphery of this claimed portion) is curved except (see Fig 4f showing a portion of the sidewall of 9 is vertically flat; note that the claim has not structurally limited nor defined a periphery of the claimed portion) for the through hole (9) in cross-sectional view in a thickness direction of the ceramic (sintered compact; note compact can be construed as a relative term) substrate (3).
Claim states a “sintered” but “sintered” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the substrate is formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of sintering and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “ceramic sintered compact”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of ceramic sintered compact substrate.
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.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson (US 2010/00133697 A1) as applied to claim 21 above.
Regarding Claim 24, Nilsson does not explicitly disclose the ceramic (sintered compact) substrate according to claim 21, wherein the roundness has a radius in a range from 2 μm to 110 μm in cross-sectional view in the thickness direction of the through hole.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate as disclosed by Nilsson, wherein the roundness has a radius in a range from 2 μm to 110 μm in cross-sectional view in the thickness direction of the through hole in order to prevent sharp turns, provide reliable coating, provide electrical advantages, provide mechanical advantages, improve processing and improve electrical properties (Nilsson, [0055]), 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. Please note that in the instant application, page 20 [0099] and page 28 [0133], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim states a “sintered” but “sintered” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the substrate is formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of sintering and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “ceramic sintered compact”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of ceramic sintered compact substrate.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson (US 2010/00133697 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jaramillo (US 2018/0068868 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Nilsson disclose the limitations of the preceding claim.
Nilsson does not disclose the ceramic (sintered compact) substrate according to claim 21, wherein the inner surface defining the first recessed has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra in a range from 200 nm to 2 μm.
Jaramillo (US 2018/0068868 A1) teaches of a ceramic ([0110] “glass ceramics”) substrate (Fig 8), wherein an inner surface (124) defining the first recessed has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra in a range from 200 nm to 2 μm ([0006,0013,0024,0032,0117,0128,0132-0134,0178] Table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate as disclosed by Nilsson, wherein the inner surface defining the first recessed has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra in a range from 200 nm to 2 μm as taught by Jaramillo, in order to prevent poor metallization, prevent inadequate electrical performance, and prevent cracking (Jaramillo [0006,0013,0024,0032,0117,0128,0132-0134]).
Claim states a “sintered” but “sintered” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the substrate is formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of sintering and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “ceramic sintered compact”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of ceramic sintered compact substrate.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson (US 2010/00133697 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Casey (US 5,759,669).
Regarding Claim 27, Nilsson disclose the limitations of the preceding claim including the first recessed portion.
Nilsson does not disclose the ceramic (sintered compact) substrate according to claim 21, wherein in cross-sectional view in a thickness direction of the ceramic (sintered) compact substrate, a metal member disposed in the first recessed portion is flush with a first flat surface portion of the first surface of the ceramic substrate.
Casey (US 5,759,669) teaches of a ceramic (Column 6, lines 34-40; “glass-ceramic”) substrate (Fig 2-5), wherein in cross-sectional view (see Fig 2-5) in a thickness direction of the ceramic (sintered) compact substrate (12), a metal (Column 1, lines 30-45, Column 3, lines 1-24, Column 5, lines 4-20, Column 6, lines 18-29) member (14) disposed in a first recessed portion (11) is flush (Column 4, lines 11-17,) with a first flat surface portion (portion of 13) of a first surface (13) of the ceramic substrate (12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate as disclosed by Nilsson, wherein in cross-sectional view in a thickness direction of the ceramic (sintered) compact substrate, a metal member disposed in the first recessed portion is flush with a first flat surface portion of the first surface of the ceramic substrate as taught by Casey, in order to prevent trapping of fluids and debris and provide maximum electrical performance (Casey, Column 1, lines 30-45, Column 3, lines 1-24, Column 4, lines 1-35, Column 5, lines 4-20, Column 6, lines 18-29). The combination of Nilsson in view of Casey would teach wherein in cross-sectional view in a thickness direction of the ceramic (sintered) compact substrate, a metal member disposed in the first recessed portion is flush with a first flat surface portion of the first surface of the ceramic substrate.
Claim states a “sintered” but “sintered” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the substrate is formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of sintering and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “ceramic sintered compact”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of ceramic sintered compact substrate.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson (US 2010/00133697 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2019/0313524 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Nilsson disclose the limitations of the preceding claim.
Nilsson does not disclose the ceramic (sintered compact) substrate according to claim 21, wherein a metal compound layer is present at a contact portion between the metal member and the ceramic substrate.
Huang (US 2019/0313524 A1) teaches of a ceramic (Abstract, [0125] “glass ceramic”) substrate (Fig 1-3) wherein a metal compound layer ([0129,0154] “adhesion layer” “titanium nitride”; note this is the same material stated by the Applicant; see Applicant’s Specification p. 29, [0144]) is present at a contact portion between a metal member (150) and a ceramic substrate (114,100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate as disclosed by Nilsson, wherein a metal compound layer is present at a contact portion between the metal member and the ceramic substrate as taught by Huang, in order to provide adhesion (Huang, [0129,0154]).
Claim states a “sintered” but “sintered” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the substrate is formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of sintering and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “ceramic sintered compact”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of ceramic sintered compact substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Suni (US 2017/0135205 A1) teaches of a ceramic substrate (Fig 1) wherein a metal compound layer (3; Table 10) is present at a contact portion between a metal member (2) and a ceramic substrate (1). This could be used in a 103 Rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights