DETAILED ACTION
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(s)
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on August 8, 2025 was considered by the Examiner.
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 1-17 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 1 includes “wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed so that the second metal layer includes a volume corresponding to a volume of the first metal layer” and it is unclear if “corresponding” means the volumes are the same or not, or if they fall within an unspecified range or ratio of each other. For the purposes of examination, this will be interpreted to mean the volumes fall within a range of each other.
Claim 5 includes “wherein the first intaglio pattern is formed by penetrating a portion of the first metal layer to expose the insulating layer toward the penetrated portion of the first metal layer” and it is unclear what penetrates the first metal layer, and it is further unclear how the insulating layer can be exposed toward the penetrated portion of the first metal layer, since the penetrated portion is part of the metal layer and would cover the insulating layer, not expose it. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “wherein the first intaglio pattern is formed by an opening penetrating a portion of the first metal layer to expose the insulating layer toward the opening that penetrates the portion of the first metal layer.”
Claim 6 includes “a semiconductor chip disposed on a first peripheral portion that relatively protrudes outside a portion of the first metal layer” and this is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the term “relatively” is unclear. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “a semiconductor chip disposed on a first peripheral portion that protrudes outside a portion of the first metal layer.”
Claim 7 includes “wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed on the second metal layer” and this is indefinite as it is inconsistent with claim 1, which states that the second metal layer includes the second intaglio pattern. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed in the second metal layer.”
Claim 9 includes “the second peripheral portion relatively protruding outside a portion of the second metal layer” and this is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the term “relatively” is unclear. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the second peripheral portion protruding outside a portion of the second metal layer.”
Claim 11 includes “wherein the first intaglio pattern is formed by penetrating a portion of the first metal layer to expose the insulating layer in a direction toward the first metal layer through the penetrated portion” and it is unclear what penetrates the first metal layer, and it is further unclear how the insulating layer can be exposed in a direction toward the first metal layer through the penetrated portion as the penetrated portion is part of the first metal layer and would therefore cover the insulating layer, not expose it. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “wherein the first intaglio pattern is formed by an opening penetrating a portion of the first metal layer to expose the insulating layer in a direction toward the first metal layer through the opening.”
Further, claim 11 includes “the second intaglio pattern is formed on the second metal layer” which is indefinite as it is inconsistent with claim 1 where the second metal layer includes the second intaglio pattern. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the second intaglio pattern is formed in the second metal layer.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20090174063A1 (“Furukawa”) in view of US20250203751A1 (“Lee”).
RE: Claim 1, Furukawa discloses A power module (10 in FIGs. 1-2, [0028]) comprising:
an insulating layer (ceramic substrate 14 in FIG. 2, [0040]; instant application identifies ceramic as insulating, [0050]; Accordingly, ceramic substrate is insulating);
a first metal layer (15, [0019]) disposed on a first surface (top surface of 14) of the insulating layer, and including a first intaglio pattern (pattern defined by 15; a wiring pattern is formed on the front metal plates 15 through the etching process, [0024]; this etched groove pattern of 15 forms a first intaglio pattern seen in FIGs. 1-2; the terminology “intaglio pattern” is further discussed below); and
a second metal layer (16, [0019]) disposed on a second surface (bottom surface of 14) of the insulating layer, and including a second intaglio pattern (trenches 19 or 20 in FIG. 6(a), 6(b), 7(a) or 7(b)).
Furukawa does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed so that the second metal layer includes a volume corresponding to a volume of the first metal layer.
Note that “intaglio” is not defined in the instant specification.
The word “intaglio” has been defined as “a design, figure, or ornamentation carved, engraved, or etched into the surface of the material used,” see definition 3 by Dictionary.com. As Furukawa teaches the wiring pattern in 15, and the trenches 19, 20 in 16 are formed by etching, [0024], [0045]-[0046], [0050] under a broad reasonable interpretation, the groove pattern defined by 15 and the groove/trench pattern 19, 20 of 16 correspond to the claimed first intaglio pattern and second intaglio pattern, respectively.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses in FIGs. 1, 3:
upper metal layer 120, [0042];
a lower metal layer 130, [0043], where the lower metal layer has grooves (133, 135, [0048]).
The grooves 133, 135 in Lee are shown forming trenches in 130.
Lee further discloses The recessed groove 135 may be additionally formed near the line groove 133 to ensure that the lower metal layer 130 has a predetermined volume corresponding to a volume of the upper metal layer 120. That is, the recessed groove 135 may be additionally formed near the line groove 133 to control the volume ratio of the upper metal layer 120 and lower metal layer 130 to be within the range of 0.9 to 1, [0048].
Lee further discloses The line groove 133 and the recessed groove 135 of the lower metal layer 130 can suppress the warpage phenomenon, [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second intaglio pattern of the second metal layer 16 so that the second metal layer 16 includes a volume corresponding to a volume of the first metal layer 15 so that the volume ratio of the upper metal layer 15 and lower metal layer 16 are within the range of 0.9 to 1 as taught by Lee in order to suppress warpage as further taught by Lee.
RE: Claim 2, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 1, wherein the first intaglio pattern and the second intaglio pattern are formed so that the first metal layer and the second metal layer have different planar shapes from each other (Furukawa FIGs. 1-2, and FIG. 6(a), 6(b), 7(a), 7(b), or 9(b) show that the first intaglio pattern of 15 and the second intaglio pattern of 16 are formed so that 15 and 16 have different planar shapes from each other in that 15 is completely penetrated and 16 is not completely penetrated).
RE: Claim 3, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 1, wherein the first intaglio pattern and the second intaglio pattern are formed so that the first metal layer and the second metal layer have different cross-sectional shapes from each other (Furukawa FIG. 2 and FIG. 9(b) show that show that the first intaglio pattern of 15 and the second intaglio pattern of 16 are formed so that 15 and 16 have different cross-sectional shapes from each other in that 15 is completely penetrated and 16 is not completely penetrated).
RE: Claim 4, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 1, wherein the first intaglio pattern forms an electrical path (In Furukawa: the wiring pattern in 15, [0024]) on the first metal layer (a wiring pattern is formed on the front metal plates 15 through the etching process, [0024]).
RE: Claim 5, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 4, wherein the first intaglio pattern is formed by penetrating a portion of the first metal layer to expose the insulating layer toward the penetrated portion of the first metal layer (FIGs. 1-2 show the first intaglio pattern is formed by an opening penetrating a portion of the first metal layer 15 to expose the insulating layer 14 toward the opening that penetrates the portion of the first metal layer 15).
RE: Claim 6, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 5, further including: a semiconductor chip (Furukawa FIG. 2: left 12, [0019]) disposed on a first peripheral portion (peripheral portion of H in FIG. 2) that relatively protrudes outside a portion of the first metal layer (the portion of 15 that defines the groove in 15) where the first intaglio pattern is formed (FIG. 2 shows the left 12 is disposed on a first peripheral portion of H that protrudes outside the portion of 15 that defines the groove in 15).
RE: Claim 7, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 1, wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed on the second metal layer to prevent the insulating layer from being exposed in a direction toward the second metal layer (Furukawa FIG. 9(b) shows a trench 19, 20 is formed in 16, where the trench 19, 20 does not completely penetrate through 16 to surface 16a, [0050]; FIG. 2 shows surface 16a is in direct contact with 14; Accordingly, the second intaglio pattern 19, 20 of 16 would be formed to prevent the insulating layer 14 from being exposed in a downward direction toward 16).
RE: Claim 8, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 7, wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed by recessing a surface (22 in FIG. 9(b) Furukawa) of the second metal layer so that the recessed surface of the second metal layer is spaced from a top surface (16a in FIG. 9(b)) of the second metal layer (Furukawa FIG. 9(b) shows a surface 22 of the second metal layer 16 is recessed so that the recessed surface 22 of the second metal layer 16 is spaced from a top surface 16a of the second metal layer).
RE: Claim 11, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 1, wherein the first intaglio pattern is formed by penetrating a portion of the first metal layer to expose the insulating layer in a direction toward the first metal layer through the penetrated portion, and wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed on the second metal layer to prevent the insulating layer from being exposed in a direction toward the second metal layer ( FIGs. 1-2 show the first intaglio pattern is formed by an opening penetrating a portion of the first metal layer 15 to expose the insulating layer 14 in a direction toward the first metal layer 15 through the opening in 15; Further, Furukawa FIG. 9(b) shows a trench 19, 20 is formed in 16, where the trench 19, 20 does not completely penetrate through 16 to surface 16a, [0050]; FIG. 2 shows surface 16a is in direct contact with 14; Accordingly, the second intaglio pattern 19, 20 of 16 would be formed to prevent the insulating layer 14 from being exposed in a downward direction toward 16).
RE: Claim 12, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 11, wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed by recessing a surface (22 in FIG. 9(b) Furukawa) of the second metal layer so that the recessed surface of the second metal layer is spaced from a top surface (16a in FIG. 9(b)) of the second metal layer (Furukawa FIG. 9(b) shows a surface 22 of the second metal layer 16 is recessed so that the recessed surface 22 of the second metal layer 16 is spaced from a top surface 16a of the second metal layer).
RE: Claim 14, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 1, wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed to reduce a thickness of a cross section of the second metal layer in a direction toward a center portion of an intaglio in the second intaglio pattern (Furukawa FIG. 9(b) shows the second intaglio pattern 19, 20 in 16 is formed to reduce a thickness of a cross section of the second metal layer 16 in a horizontal direction toward a center portion of an intaglio 19, 20 in the second intaglio pattern).
RE: Claim 15, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 1, wherein the first intaglio pattern and the second intaglio pattern are formed by removing a portion of the first metal layer and a portion of the second metal layer by etching (the limitation “wherein the first intaglio pattern and the second intaglio pattern are formed by removing a portion of the first metal layer and a portion of the second metal layer by etching” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” and “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art," see MPEP 2113; Furukawa teaches a wiring pattern is formed on the front metal plates 15 through the etching process, and the recesses 18 are formed together with the wiring pattern, [0024]; trenches 19 in 16 are formed by etching, [0045]; trenches 20 in 16 are formed by etching, [0046]; the word “etching” is not defined in the instant specification; the word “etch” is defined as “to produce (something, such as a pattern or design) on a hard material by eating into the material's surface,” see definition 1a by Merriam-Webster; Accordingly, the first intaglio pattern/grooves in 15 was formed by eating into 15, thereby removing a portion from 15, and the second intaglio pattern 19, 20 was formed by eating into 16, thereby removing a portion from 16).
RE: Claim 17, Furukawa in view of Lee discloses The power module of claim 15, wherein the first intaglio pattern and the second intaglio pattern are formed by etching the first metal layer and the second metal layer after the first metal layer and the second metal layer are respectively bonded to the first and second surfaces of the insulating layer (the limitation “wherein the first intaglio pattern and the second intaglio pattern are formed by etching the first metal layer and the second metal layer after the first metal layer and the second metal layer are respectively bonded to the first and second surfaces of the insulating layer” is a product by process limitation; “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” and “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art," see MPEP 2113; Furukawa teaches a wiring pattern is formed on the front metal plates 15 through the etching process, and the recesses 18 are formed together with the wiring pattern, [0024]; trenches 19 in 16 are formed by etching, [0045]; trenches 20 in 16 are formed by etching, [0046]; Furukawa teaches etching 15, 16 after joining 15, 16 to the ceramic substrate 14, [0024]; Lee teaches the upper metal layer 120 and the lower metal layer 130 are joined to the ceramic substrate 110 by being bonded to the ceramic substrate 110, [0042]-[0043]; Accordingly, it would have been obvious to join 15, 16 to the ceramic insulating layer 14 by bonding them together as taught by Lee in order to ensure 15, 16 are fixed to the ceramic insulating layer 14; As a result, the etching of 15, 16 would be performed after 15,16 are bonded to 14).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa in view of Lee as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US20260082913A1 (“Lee-2”).
RE: Claim 9, Furukawa in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose The power module of claim 7, wherein the second intaglio pattern is formed to include a second peripheral portion shaped of a pin, the second peripheral portion relatively protruding outside a portion of the second metal layer wherein an intaglio of the second intaglio pattern is formed.
However, in Furukawa, the trenches 19 in the second metal layer 16 would form protrusions in FIG. 6(a), 6(b), 9(b).
Furukawa also teaches the second metal layer 16 is made of a material having heat conveying properties, [0056].
In the same field of endeavor, Lee-2 discloses in FIG. 3:
a metal heat sink 400 bonded to a bottom surface of a ceramic base 100, [0066].
Lee-2 further teaches The heat sink 400 may include a flat portion 410 and a plurality of protrusions 420. As will be described later, the plurality of protrusions 420 may form a path through which liquid coolant flows. The heat sink 400 may be a heat sink such as microchannel, pin fin, [0066].
Lee-2 further teaches the plurality of protrusions 420 have a water-cooled heat dissipation structure that allows direct cooling by the continuously circulating liquid coolant to be performed, [0071].
Lee-2 further teaches the protrusions are formed through etching, [0067].
Accordingly, under a broad reasonable interpretation, the protrusions 420 in Lee-2 are part of an intaglio pattern.
Lee-2 therefore teaches:
an intaglio pattern is formed to include a second peripheral portion shaped of a pin (leftmost protrusion/pin 420 in FIG. 3 which is formed by etching), the second peripheral portion relatively protruding outside a portion of the second metal layer wherein an intaglio of the second intaglio pattern is formed (rightmost protrusions/pins 420 in FIG. 3 which is where an intaglio is formed as it is formed by etching).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusions of the second metal layer 16 defined by the trenches 19 to be pins cooled by liquid coolant as taught by Lee-2 in order to allow direct cooling by continuously circulating liquid coolant. As a result, the second intaglio pattern of 16 would be formed to include a second peripheral portion shaped of a pin, the second peripheral portion protruding outside a portion of the second metal layer 16 wherein an intaglio of the second intaglio pattern is formed.
RE: Claim 10, Furukawa in view of Lee, Lee-2 discloses The power module of claim 9, further including: a cooling channel (From FIG. 3 Lee-2: internal flow path of coolant circulation unit 2, [0071]) into which the second peripheral portion is positioned and in which a cooling fluid in contact with the second peripheral portion flows (Lee-2 teaches the plurality of protrusions 420 may be arranged in the internal flow path of the coolant circulation unit 2, and may directly contact the liquid coolant continuously circulating along the internal flow path to perform heat exchange, [0071]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20240206057A1 (“Sakai”).
RE: Claim 13, Furukawa in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose The power module of claim 1, wherein the first intaglio pattern is formed to reduce a thickness of a cross section of the first metal layer in a direction toward a center portion of an intaglio in the first intaglio pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sakai teaches in FIG. 1:
a conductor layer 12 on an insulating substrate 11, [0013], [0018].
Sakai further teaches the conductor layer 12 is formed to have a shape with the width (Wa) of the upper surface (12 a) being equal to or larger than the width (Wb) of the lower surface (12 b), and the width (Wb) of the lower surface (12 b) being larger than the minimum width (Wi) of the middle portion, [0014].
Sakai further teaches the conductor layer 12 is preferably formed by etching with a copper chloride etching solution containing an etching inhibitor, [0016].
Sakai therefore teaches in FIG. 1:
an intaglio pattern (pattern of 12 formed by etching 12) is formed to reduce a thickness of a cross section of the first metal layer in a direction (horizontal direction in FIG. 1).
Sakai further teaches the inter-wiring distance defined by the widths (Wa) of the upper surfaces (12 a) can be reduced. As a result, a high density of wiring patterns formed of the conductor layers 12 can be achieved, [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the left and right wiring patterns of 15 to each include the shape and widths as taught by Sakai in order to achieve or allow high density wiring patterns as further taught by Sakai. As a result, the first intaglio pattern of 15 would be formed to reduce a thickness of a cross section of 15 in a horizontal direction toward the center portion of the groove/intaglio of 15 in FIG. 2 Furukawa.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa in view of Lee as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US20110111182 A1 (“Stay”).
RE: Claim 16, Furukawa in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose The power module of claim 15, wherein at least one of the first and second intaglio patterns is formed by wet-etching using chemical reaction.
Note the limitation “wherein at least one of the first and second intaglio patterns is formed by wet-etching using chemical reaction” is a product by process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” and “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art," see MPEP 2113.
In a similar field of endeavor, Stay discloses:
The microstructures of the current disclosure can be utilized in many applications, [0122].
Stay further teaches Some applications using the microstructures include electronic circuitry, for example, flexible circuitry, [0122].
Stay further teaches Some useful subtractive processes for removing the exposed metal-containing layer of the metallized structured surface region include, for example, wet chemical etching, the use of liquid materials, dry etching (e.g., plasma/reactive ion etching), and laser ablation. Wet chemical etching typically involves the removal of material by immersing the metallized substrate in a liquid bath of a chemical etchant or by spraying the metallized structured surface region with a chemical etchant that reacts with the metal-containing material layer on the metallized structured surface region, [0109].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the etching process used to form the first and second intaglio patterns of the metal layers 15 and 16 to be a wet etching process that reacts with the metal layers 15, 16 as taught by Stay as this would have been obvious to try since wet etching is one solution for etching metal identified by Stay, and this would have had a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANGUIANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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 ANGUIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights