Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/486,168

ACTIVE METAL BRAZING SUBSTRATE MATERIAL AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 13, 2023
Examiner
LA VILLA, MICHAEL EUGENE
Art Unit
1784
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tong Hsing Electronic Industries Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
693 granted / 921 resolved
+10.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
951
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
34.2%
-5.8% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
36.6%
-3.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 921 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (CSL: SiN; LMPM: Sn; FAME: Ti; SAME: Ti; CML: Cu) in the reply filed on 21 October 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that elected and non-elected claim groups relate to same inventive concept and so relevant search, etc. would substantially overlap; that proposed alternative is speculative; and that species operate under same principles and should not be regarded as “chemically mutually exclusive” and/or “non-obvious variants”. This is not found persuasive because inventive concept being similar or not is not standard for independent and distinct inventions, because overlapping search does not mean that searches would be different for reasons presented in Restriction Requirement, because applicant has provided no evidence that “speculative” alternative would be unachievable, and because species are chemically mutually exclusive and they are not obvious variants in view of record, including no admission by applicant that they are obvious variants. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 21 October 2025. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 7, the final “wherein” clause should be preceded by a conjunction such as “and”. 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 1-7 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. Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what are the thickness requirements. The thickness sum of first and second brazing layers must be not less than 12 microns with the thickness of first brazing layer being not less than 5 microns and thickness of second brazing layer being not less than 10 microns. However, if the thickness of first layer must be not less than 5 microns and the thickness of the second layer must be not less than 10 microns, it is unclear how the sum of thickness can be anywhere in the range from not less than 12 microns to 15 microns. It is unclear how this apparent contradiction is to be reconciled. Regarding Claim 1, in view of the claimed possibility of there being more than one “low melting point metal element” in dependent claims, it is unclear whether the specified weight requirement of between 10 and 40 parts by weight applies to all such low melting point metal element or to any single or combination of such low melting point metal element. Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is the full scope of “active metal” in “first active metal element” and “second active metal element”. To the extent that these could be other than what is specified in Claim 7, it is unclear what they would be. How would it be determined that a metal element ingredient should be encompassed by this terminology or not. Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear what metals have a liquid density of ca. 12 grams per cubic meter at melting point. Should this be 12 grams per cubic centimeter? Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear whether the claimed electrical resistivity is to be obtained somewhere in the specified temperature range or over the entire specified temperature range? Regarding Claim 4, to the extent that there is more than one “low melting point metal element”, it is unclear whether the specified weight requirement of between 5 and 35 % by weight applies to all such low melting point metal element or to any single or combination of such low melting point metal element. Regarding Claim 4, to the extent that there is more than one “first active metal element” and/or “second active metal element”, it is unclear whether the specified weight requirement of between 1 and 5 % by weight applies to all such first and/or second active metal element or to any single or combination of such first and/or second active metal element. Regarding Claim 5, to the extent that there is more than one “low melting point metal element”, it is unclear whether the specified weight requirement of there being greater Cu content than “low melting point metal element” in the second brazing layer relates to all such low melting point metal element or to any single or combination of such low melting point metal element. Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear how content is assessed. Is this a content by weight, or some other basis? Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by an “active metal element” being a hydride, which is a compound, as some of the specified possibilities include. Conventionally, a “metal hydride” is not a metal element. Are other metal compounds encompassed? Furthermore, should weight assessments necessarily include hydride component if hydride component if present (or other non metal compound component)? Allowable Subject Matter Regarding Claims 1-7, as relates to elected species, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest claimed ceramic substrate layer having active metal layer of claimed double layer structure having claimed ingredient requirements in terms of metal elements, relative amounts, and thicknesses, disposed as claimed, and conductive layer, disposed as claimed, in the claimed context. For example, Mao USPA 2025/0010408 fails to teach or suggest the claimed “low melting point metal element” ingredient. See Mao (Claims; and entire document). For example, Yano USPA 2014/0291699 teaches ceramic/copper composite joined by brazing layer having claimed metal element ingredients, but fails to teach or suggest brazing layer having double layer structure and allocation of ingredients in respective layers with respective compositional requirements and thickness requirements, in the claimed context. See Yano (Claim 1; and entire document). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET. 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 N. 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. /MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 7 February 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595540
STEEL SHEET AND PLATED STEEL SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584208
A coated metallic substrate
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584204
STEEL WIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576921
FINISH PART AND STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577651
FLAT STEEL PRODUCT HAVING AN IMPROVED ZINC COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+18.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 921 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month