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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/11/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-9 over Naba (US 2022/0037225) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/11/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Fujisawa (US 2025/0087576) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11 over Naba is maintained. The claim amendments do not distinguish the claimed invention from Naba because the additional elements disclosed in Naba are optional (see ¶ 39).
Upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been entered for claim 8 and its dependent claims in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “80%” which should be “80 wt%”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-7 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 1 recites: “the active metal solder consisting of…an amount of the copper ranges from 65 wt% to 80%, and an amount of the silver ranges from 10 wt% to 45 wt%”. There is no possible composition within the claimed ranges for silver that exceeds 35 wt%, rendering the claimed composition indefinite. Additionally, it should be noted the specification requires 1 wt% to 10 wt% of the active metal solder (see Spec., ¶ 31), which indicates the maximum theoretical silver content for the claimed composition is 34 wt%. Dependent claims not addressed are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Naba et al. (US 2022/0037225) in view of Hutin (WO 2011/023394).
Regarding claims 8-9, Naba teaches coating a brazing material paste onto a ceramic substrate (¶ 59). The brazing material paste includes Cu, an active metal such as Ti or Zr (¶ 39), and 15%-88.9% Ag in terms of metal (¶ 39). The paste includes an organic substance (corresponding to the claimed organic dispersion medium) (¶ 56). A copper circuit is disposed on the paste (¶ 59), followed by brazing at 700-900°C (¶ 59). Naba teaches the bond strength of the resulting joined component is at least 16 kN/m (160 N/cm) (¶ 39). The prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Naba does not expressly teach a weight ratio between the solder and the organic substance is 75%-95% to 5%-30%. Hutin teaches a solder paste is made by combining 30%-90% wt of a solder with 10%-70% of a binder (p. 5, lines 5-7). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a solder paste using the amount of binder taught by Hutin, as this represents the ratio of solder to organic dispersion medium known in the prior art for making a solder paste.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Naba et al. (US 2022/0037225) in view of Hutin (WO 2011/023394), as applied to claim 8, further in view of Bai et al. (CN 112319078).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed above. Naba does not expressly teach a brazing temperature of 1000°C-1100°C for an active metal solder containing 10%-20% silver. Bai teaches brazing temperatures for bonding ceramic to a conductive metal layer range from 700°C-1050°C (p. 2, ¶ 8). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to braze at a higher temperature, as taught by Bai, in the process of Naba because it is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that brazing temperature depends on the composition of the braze material and it is routine optimization to discover an ideal brazing temperature of a given braze material composition.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Naba et al. (US 2022/0037225).
Regarding claim 11, Naba teaches a ceramic substrate bonded to a copper circuit via a bonding layer (¶ 39). The bonding layer is formed from a brazing material paste that includes Cu, an active metal such as Ti or Zr (¶ 39), and 15%-88.9% Ag in terms of metal (¶ 39). Other elements are optional (¶ 39). The paste includes an organic substance (¶ 56). Naba teaches the bond strength of the resulting joined component is at least 16 kN/m (160 N/cm) (¶ 39). The prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Fujisawa et al. (US 2025/0087576) in view of Hutin (WO 2011/023394).
Regarding claims 8-9, Fujisawa teaches coating a brazing material paste onto a ceramic substrate (¶ 63). The brazing material paste includes 3%-50%wt Cu and 40%-95%wt Ag (¶ 59), and an organic binder (corresponding to the claimed organic dispersion medium) to form a paste (¶ 62). A copper plate is disposed on the paste (¶ 63), followed by brazing at 700-950°C (¶ 64). Fujisawa teaches the bond strength of the resulting joined component is between 24-27 kN/m (240-270 N/cm) (see Table 7). The prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Naba does not expressly teach a weight ratio between the solder and the organic binder is 75%-95% to 5%-30%. Hutin teaches a solder paste is made by combining 30%-90% wt of a solder with 10%-70% of a binder (p. 5, lines 5-7). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a solder paste using the amount of binder taught by Hutin, as this represents the ratio of solder to organic dispersion medium known in the prior art for making a solder paste.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Fujisawa et al. (US 2025/0087576) Hutin (WO 2011/023394), as applied to claim 8, further in view of Bai et al. (CN 112319078).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed above. Fujisawa does not expressly teach a brazing temperature of 1000°C-1100°C for an active metal solder containing 10%-20% silver. Bai teaches brazing temperatures for bonding ceramic to a conductive metal layer range from 700°C-1050°C (p. 2, ¶ 8). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to braze at a higher temperature, as taught by Bai, in the process of Fujisawa because it is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that brazing temperature depends on the composition of the braze material and it is routine optimization to discover an ideal brazing temperature of a given braze material composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784