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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 8 – 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUSHIMA et al. (US 20230292433 A1) in view of AONO et al. (US 20200185320 A1, “AONO”).
Regarding claim 8, TSUSHIMA discloses (Fig. 1 ,2, 5) a circuit substrate (30) comprising: a ceramic substrate (10); copper plates (20) which are bonded to two main surfaces of the ceramic substrate (10), respectively; and silver-plating films (para [0159]) formed on surfaces of the copper plates which are opposite surfaces to bonded surfaces to the ceramic substrate, wherein a number of facets existing on a surface of the copper plate in an interface between the copper plate and the silver-plating film is 3000 or less per mm2 (See para [0012], [0029], [0159] and Fig. 2).
TSUSHIMA is silent on the silver-plating films being on the opposite surfaces to bonded surfaces to the ceramic substrate.
However, AONO discloses (Fig. 2) the silver-plating films (3) being on the opposite surfaces to bonded surfaces to the ceramic substrate (1) (See claim 1, which states that both main surfaces of the copper layer can be silver plated, para 007 also states, silver is easier to bond to, with a higher bonding strength).
TSUSHIMA and AONO are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Ceramic Circuit Substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TSUSHIMA to incorporate the teachings of AONO and provide the silver-plating films (3) being on the opposite surfaces to bonded surfaces to the ceramic substrate (1) since silver is easier to bond to, with a higher bonding strength.
Regarding claim 9, TSUSHIMA in view of AONO discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 8, wherein the number of facets with a diameter of 2.5
μ
m
or more is 1200 or less per mm2, and the number of facets with a diameter of less than 2.5
μ
m
is 1800 or less per mm2 (See para [0028] - [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, TSUSHIMA in view of AONO discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 9, wherein the number of facets with a facet diameter of less than 1.5
μ
m
is 1200 or less per mm2 (See para [0028] - [0030]).
Regarding claim 21, TSUSHIMA in view of AONO discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 8, wherein a diameter of the facets is less than 9.5
μ
m
(See para [0028] - [0030]).
Claim(s) 8 – 10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUENAGA et al. (US 20230187310 A1) in view of TSUSHIMA et al. (US 20230292433 A1) and AONO et al. (US 20200185320 A1, “AONO”).
Regarding claim 8, SUENAGA discloses (Fig. 4) a circuit substrate (10) comprising: a ceramic substrate (2); copper plates (11, 12) which are bonded to two main surfaces of the ceramic substrate, respectively; and silver-plating films (4) formed on surfaces of the copper plates,
SUENAGA is silent on wherein a number of facets existing on a surface of the copper plate in an interface between the copper plate and the silver-plating film is 3000 or less per mm2.
However, TSUSHIMA discloses (Fig. 1 - 5) wherein a number of facets existing on a surface of the copper plate in an interface between the copper plate (20) and the silver-plating film (para [0159]) is 3000 or less per mm2 (See para [0012], [0029], [0159] and Fig. 2).
SUENAGA and TSUSHIMA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of circuit substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SUENAGA to incorporate the teachings of TSUSHIMA and provide wherein a number of facets existing on a surface of the copper plate in an interface between the copper plate (20) and the silver-plating film (para [0159]) is 3000 or less per mm2 (See para [0012], [0029], [0159] and Fig. 2). Doing so a circuit board has a good heat radiation capability, and is reduced in failures, such as the phenomenon that an etching solution used in forming a circuit pattern remains, and thus the reliability as a product is enhanced (See para [0029]).
SUENAGA in view of TSUSHIMA is silent on the silver-plating films being on the opposite surfaces to bonded surfaces to the ceramic substrate.
However, AONO discloses (Fig. 2) the silver-plating films (3) being on the opposite surfaces to bonded surfaces to the ceramic substrate (1) (See para [0058]).
SUENAGA in view of TSUSHIMA and AONO are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Ceramic Circuit Substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SUENAGA in view of TSUSHIMA to incorporate the teachings of AONO and provide the silver-plating films (3) being on the opposite surfaces to bonded surfaces to the ceramic substrate (1) (See para [0058]). Doing so would provide suitability for silver nanoparticle bonding and migration resistance (para [0005] – [0007], [0012] and the abstract).
Regarding claim 9, SUENAGA in view of TSUSHIMA and AONO discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 8, wherein TSUSHIMA further discloses the number of facets with a diameter of 2.5
μ
m
or more is 1200 or less per mm2, and the number of facets with a diameter of less than 2.5
μ
m
is 1800 or less per mm2 (See para [0028] - [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, SUENAGA in view of TSUSHIMA and AONO discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 9, wherein TSUSHIMA further discloses the number of facets with a facet diameter of less than 1.5
μ
m
is 1200 or less per mm2 (See para [0028] - [0030]).
Regarding claim 21, SUENAGA in view of TSUSHIMA and AONO discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 8, wherein TSUSHIMA further discloses a diameter of the facets is less than 9.5
μ
m
(See para [0028] - [0030]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am 5 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on 571-272-2342. 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.
/SIDI M MAIGA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights