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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed in Taiwan on 4/27/2023 and 4/18/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Taiwanese application filed on 4/27/2023 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on Aug. 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation “the metal-diamond composite layer” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy (US 6727177 B1), in view of Adelmann et al. (US 5355281) (“Adelman”), Owens et al. (US 5621616) (“Owens”), and Schultz-Harder et al. (US 2012/0045657 A1) (“Schultz-Harder”).
With respect to claim 1, McCoy teaches a metal composite structure comprising a metal core layer having two metallic surfaces spaced apart from each other along a thickness direction by a predetermined thickness, wherein the metal core layer is a metal-diamond composite layer (abstr., col. 1, lines 66-67, col. 2, lines 3-9). McCoy’s structure is used for heat removal (col. 1, lines 44-46).
McCoy is silent with respect to the remaining elements of the ceramic metal composite substrate.
Adelmann discloses a substrate which is a heat transfer medium, comprising a core layer including a metal and two ceramic covering layers fixed to the metal core layer, wherein each of the two ceramic covering layers overlaps 100% of the area of the corresponding metallic surface along the thickness direction (abstr., col. 2, lines 42-68, Fig. 1). The composite heat transfer substrate does not exhibit spot heating found in metallic heat transfer mediums and has a potential of transferring as much as 200% of the heat of a conventional metallic heat transfer mediums, which allows for the associated device to be fabricated in a smaller size or being capable of producing greater power (col. 3, lines 25-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the core of McCoy with two ceramic covering layers as disclosed in Adelmann to allow for increased transfer of heat.
Adelmann is silent with respect to heat transfer coefficient of the ceramic covering layers formed of alumina (abstr.). Evidentiary reference Owens discloses heat transfer coefficient of alumina overlaps the range recited in claim 1 (col. 2, lines 43-58); overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
McCoy and Adelmann are silent with respect to two soldering layers formed on the two metallic surfaces of the metal core layer and the ceramic covering layers being fixed to the core layer through the two soldering layers. Schultz-Harder discloses a metal/ceramic substrate wherein ceramic layer – element 2 – is fixed to metal layers – elements 3 and 4 through soldering layers – elements 8 and 9 (abstr., 0093, 0094, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form two soldering layers on the surfaces of the core layer and fix the ceramic covering layers to the core layer through the two soldering layers as use of soldering layers is known in the art of ceramic metal substrates.
Regarding a sum of thicknesses of the two ceramic covering layers and thicknesses of the two soldering layers being less than or equal to the predetermined thickness, that is the thickness of the core layer, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thicknesses of the covering layers, the soldering layers and the thickness of the core layer in order to obtain the desired efficient heat transfer (Adelmann, abstr., col. 1, lines 40-50).
As to claim 3, McCoy, Adelmann, Owens and Schultz-Harder teach the substrate of claim 1. McCoy discloses the metal core layer includes a plurality of diamond particles provided as an aggregate, and copper mixed in the diamond particles (abstr., col. 2, lines 3-8, col. 5, lines 3-6).
With respect to claim 4, McCoy, Adelmann, Owens and Schultz-Harder teach the substrate of claim 3. McCoy discloses a metal-diamond composite layer is a copper-diamond composite layer (col. 2, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, McCoy, Adelmann, Owens and Schultz-Harder teach the substrate of claim 1. Adelman discloses two ceramic covering layers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The claim defines the ceramic layers as having “a grinding plane arranged away from the metal core layer.” According to the instant specification, a grinding plane is a plane that will be subjected to grinding, thus, the claim does not provide further structural limitation with respect to the ceramic layer, only that each of the ceramic layers includes an outer plane arranged away from the core layer (Adelman, Fig. 1) which will be subjected to a process of grinding.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy, in view of Adelmann, Owens, Schultz-Harder, and Zinn et al. (US 2023/0065796 A1) (“Zinn”).
Regarding claim 2, McCoy, Adelmann, Owens and Schultz-Harder teach the substrate of claim 1. McCoy discloses the metal core layer is made of a material including copper (col. 1, lines 58-59). Adelmann discloses two ceramic layers comprising alumina (col. 2, lines 50-54). Zinn discloses circuit boards formed upon ceramic layers formed of AlN (0015), AlN suitable as ceramic substrates due to their high thermal conductivity (0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the two ceramic layers of the substrate of McCoy, Adelmann, Owens and Schultz-Harder of AlN, as AlN has a higher thermal conductivity than alumina. Zinn discloses ceramic layers having a thickness of 200 µm or less (0022). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 2; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Schultz-Harder discloses ceramic layer being sintered to the metal layer through a corresponding soldering layer (0093-0094).
As to claim 5, McCoy, Adelmann, Owens, and Schultz-Harder teach the substrate of claim 1. Schultz-Harder discloses that each of the two soldering layers is a brazing paste (0094). Zinn discloses circuit boards formed upon ceramic layers formed of AlN (0015), AlN suitable as ceramic substrates due to their high thermal conductivity (0072). Zinn discloses a thickness of any one of the two ceramic layers of 200 µm or less (0022). The references are silent with respect to a thickness of the corresponding soldering layers that is less than or equal to 30 µm, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the soldering layers to obtain adequate bonding of the ceramic material and the metal material (Schultz-Harder, 0093).
As to claim 7, McCoy, Adelmann, Owens and Schultz-Harder teach the substrate of claim 6. As discussed above with respect to claim 6, according to the instant specification, the grinding plane is a plane that will be subjected to grinding, thus, the claim does not provide further structural limitation with respect to the ceramic layer, only that each of the ceramic layers includes an outer plane arranged away from the core layer (Adelman, Fig. 1) which will be subjected to a process of grinding.
Zinn discloses circuit layers formed of copper upon ceramic layers formed of AlN (0015, 0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form two circuit layers on the outer planes of the ceramic covering layers of the substrate of McCoy, Adelmann, Owens and Schultz-Harder, as it is known in the art to form circuit layers on ceramic layers. The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 7 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 7; the references teach the structure.
With respect to claim 8, McCoy, Adelmann, Owens, Schultz-Harder and Zinn teach the substrate of claim 7. Zinn discloses a ceramic covering layer having a through-hole that is recessed from the outer plane thereof to the corresponding soldering layer (0097) – the soldering layer disclosed in Schultz-Harder discussed above – and a corresponding one of the two circuit layers is filled to occupy an entirety of the through-hole so as to be connected to the corresponding soldering layer (Zinn, 0097-0099).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights