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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/12/2024 and 9/2/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract and title are consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP 608.01(b) and 606, respectively.
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 14-25 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 14 recites the limitation "the manufactured carrier substrate" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of a manufactured carrier substrate in the claim. For proper antecedence and for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as "the carrier substrate." Appropriate correction is required. Claims 15-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for further limiting and depending on indefinite claim 14. Claim 19 recites the limitations "the manufactured carrier substrate" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of a manufactured carrier substrate in the claim. For proper antecedence and for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as "the carrier substrate." Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 recites the limitations "the stacking direction" in line 2 and “the main extension plane” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of a stacking direction and a main extension plane in the claim. For proper antecedence and for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as "a stacking direction" and “a main extension plane,” respectively. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 21 recites the limitation "The method of manufacturing a carrier substrate (1) according to claim 14.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of a manufacturing method and a carrier substrate was already introduced in claim 14 of which claim 21 is dependent on. For proper antecedence and for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as "A method of manufacturing [[a]] the carrier substrate (1) according to claim 14." Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Terasaki US PGPub. 2024/0203819 as evidenced by Iyer US Pat. 6,046,098. Regarding claim 14, Terasaki teaches a carrier substrate (10, fig. 1-2B) [0041] for electrical components (3, fig. 1)[0042],[0104], comprising: a heat sink (5, fig. 1)[0045], and a ceramic element (11, fig. 1)[0048], wherein the ceramic element (11) is bonded to the heat sink (5) at least in sections, wherein a bonding layer (31, fig. 2B) [0057]-[0058] free of solder material (Titanium silicide, [0058]) is formed in the manufactured carrier substrate (10) between the heat sink (5) and the ceramic element (11), and wherein an adhesion agent layer (31, fig. 2B) [0057]-[0058] of the bonding layer (31) has a sheet resistance which is greater than 5 ohm/sq (Titanium silicide, [0058]), characterized in that the heat sink (5) is bonded to the ceramic element (11) via a backside metallization (13, fig. 1 and 2B)[0042] and the adhesion agent layer (31) is formed between the backside metallization (13) and the ceramic element (11) (Terasaki, fig. 1-2B). The adhesion agent layer (31) of the bonding layer (31) is considered to have a sheet resistance which is greater than 5 ohm/sq because the adhesion layer is made of Titanium silicide, [0058] and Iyer US Pat. 6,046,098 (col. 3, lines 25-31) provides evidence that the sheet resistance of titanium silicide is greater than 5 ohms/sq. (less than 12 ohm/sq, col. 3, lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 15, Terasaki teaches the carrier substrate (10) according to claim 14, wherein the ceramic element (11) comprises a material composition (silicon nitride, [0048]) which cannot be bonded via a direct bonding method (Terasaki, [0048]). The ceramic element (11) is considered to comprise a material composition which cannot be bonded via direct bonding method because the carrier element (11) is Terasaki is made of silicon nitride which is the same material as that of the invention (see [0028] of the publication of the instant application) that cannot be bonded to a metal using direct bonding.
Regarding claim 16, Terasaki teaches the carrier substrate (10) according to claim 14, wherein the ceramic element comprises Si3N4 (Terasaki, [0048])
Regarding claim 18, Terasaki teaches the carrier substrate (10) according to claim 14, wherein the ceramic element (11) has a thickness which is less than 300 μm (0.2mm = 200µm, [0048]) (Terasaki, [0048]).
Regarding claim 20, Terasaki teaches the carrier substrate (1) according to claim 14, a thickness of the bonding layer or adhesion agent layer (31), measured in the stacking (Z direction, fig. 2B) direction (S), averaged over a plurality of measuring points within a predetermined area or in a plurality of areas which course or run parallel to the main extension plane (from left to right of fig. 2B), has a value which is less than 1000 nm (0.8mm = 800µm or less, [0060]) (Terasaki, [0060]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki US PGPub. 2024/0203819 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Terasaki et al. US PGPub. 2015/0282379 (Terasaki et al.). Regarding claim 17, Terasaki does not teach the carrier substrate (10) according to claim 14, wherein a grain size in the backside metallization (13) is different from a grain size in the heat sink (5). However, Terasaki et al. teaches a carrier substrate (30, fig. 1) [0055] wherein a grain size in the backside metallization (13, fig. 1) [0087] is different from a grain size in the heat sink (31, fig. 1) [0087] (Terasaki et al., fig. 1, [0087]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the grain sizes of the metallization and heat sink of Terasaki with that taught by Terasaki et al. in order to prevent unnecessary distortions accumulation in the metallization layer and heat sink as well as achieving good fatigue characteristics (Terasaki et al., [0087]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki US PGPub. 2024/0203819 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yamagishi et al. US PGPub. 2023/0130647. Regarding claim 19, Terasaki teaches wherein the heat sink (5) has recesses which form a cooling channel in the manufactured carrier substrate (10) (Terasaki, fig. 1, [0045]). But Terasaki does not teach the carrier substrate (10) according to claim 14, wherein the heat sink (5) is formed from at least a first metal layer and a second metal layer which are joined on top of one another by means of a direct bonding method, wherein the first metal layer and/or the second metal layer have recesses which form a cooling channel in the manufactured carrier substrate (10). However, Yamagishi teaches a carrier substrate (fig. 4) wherein the heat sink (40L, 40H, fig. 4) [0051] is formed from at least a first metal layer and a second metal layer (laminating a plurality of different metal layers, [0051]) which are joined on top of one another by means of a direct bonding method [0051] (Yamagishi et al., fig., 4, [0051]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitute of the heat sink of Terasaki for the direct bonded plurality of metal layer heat sink of Yamagishi because such heat sink structure is well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose (for heat dissipation, Yamagishi et al., [0050]) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2144.06).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a method of manufacturing the carrier substrate according to claim 14, comprising “bonding the backside metallization (74) to the ceramic element (71) by means of hot isostatic pressing for forming a metal-ceramic substrate” in combination with “bonding the heat sink (20) to the backside metallization (74) by means of a direct bonding method” as recited in claim 21.
Claims 22-25 are also objected to as allowable for further limiting and depending upon allowable claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Terasaki US PGPub. 2020/0243409 (fig. 1-2) also teaches a carrier substrate with bonding layer between a backside metallization and the aceramic element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9am - 5pm..
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights