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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamei (20200309454).
Regarding claim 1, Kamei teaches a bonded object production method using a continuous furnace (par. 13 teaches a continuous furnace) to process a stacked body while conveying the stacked body (par. 42, 43 and 83, as well as fig. 1 and 3 teach stacking bodies while migrating through the continuous furnace), the stacked body including a metal member, a ceramic member, and a brazing material layer located between the metal member and the ceramic member (par. 42, 61-62, 64, 66, 76 teach these elements being bonded), the method comprising:
heating the stacked body in an inert atmosphere (par, 28 teaches an inert gas filling the continuous furnace) from 200 °C to a bonding temperature at an average temperature raising rate of the stacked body of not less than 15 °C/min (par. 9, 72, 77, 82 teach temperature ranges with time ranges corresponding to these temperature ranges that satisfy this limitation);
bonding the stacked body in an inert atmosphere at the bonding temperature (par, 75-77 teaches an inert gas filling the continuous furnace at a temperature for binding), the bonding temperature being within a range of not less than 600 °C and not more than 950 °C (par. 75-77 teach temperature ranges with time ranges, used during the bonding process, corresponding to these temperature ranges that satisfy this limitation); and
cooling the stacked body from the bonding temperature to 200 °C at an average temperature lowering rate of the stacked body of not less than 15 °C/min (par. 84, 90 and 91 teach cooling in the continuous furnace, which houses the laminates; par. 9, 72, 77, 82 teach temperature ranges with time ranges corresponding to these temperature ranges that satisfy this limitation)..
Please note that multiple embodiments of prior art are used above. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing to utilize these embodiments in combination since are related to similar fields of endeavor.
Regarding claim 11, Kamei teaches a bonded object production method according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic member is a silicon nitride substrate (par. 42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 are objected to based on their dependency on claim 12.
Claims 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-19 are objected to based on their dependency on claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818