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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4’s drawing and label are not on the same page, and Fig. 5’s drawing and label are not on the same page. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that “whose ends portions face among the plurality of heat sinks” should be --whose ends portions face each other among the plurality of heat sinks--, and “in which the end portions face” should be --in which the end portions face each other--.
It appears that “when the virtual line is drawn” in line 3 of the claim should be --wherein the virtual line is drawn--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that in line 1, “A method manufacturing” should be “A method of manufacturing”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8-9, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8, which depends directly from claim 7, recites “the protrusion” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, “the protrusion” will be treated as --a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions--.
Claim 9, which depends directly from claim 7, recites “the same area” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, “wherein the plurality of heat sinks each have the same area of the flat portion” will be treated as –wherein each flat portion of the plurality of heat sinks has a same area--.
Claim 11, which depends directly from claim 7, recites “the protrusion located on the same virtual line” in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, “the protrusion” will be treated as --a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions--, and “the same virtual line” will be treated as --a same virtual line--.
Claim 16 recites “the heat sink” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, the limitation “preparing heat sinks partitioned into a plurality of heat sinks” will be treated as --preparing a heat sink partitioned into a plurality of heat sinks-- so that “the heat sink” will have antecedent basis.
Claims 17-20, because they are dependent on claim 16, inherit the deficiencies of claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 20170053852) in view of Park (KR 20170133637 A, citations made hereinafter to the attached English Machine Translation), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 6/25/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Oi teaches, in Fig. 3b, a ceramic substrate unit ([0065]) comprising:
a ceramic substrate (13/11/15) having a metal layer provided on upper (15, [0040]) and lower surfaces (13, [0038]) of a ceramic base (11, [0038]); and
an upper electrode (16, [0040]) bonded to an upper metal layer (15) of the ceramic substrate and formed so that a semiconductor chip (30, [0038], see Fig. 1c) is mounted thereon; and
a heat sink (20, [0038]) bonded to a lower metal layer (13) of the ceramic substrate (13/11/15) (see Fig. 3b).
Oi does not teach that the heat sink is partitioned into a plurality of heat sinks.
In a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches, in Fig. 7, that the heat sink is partitioned into a plurality of heat sinks (500, [0058]), so that “the heat dissipation performance can be improved, and deformation of the circuit board due to heat generation of the electronic component (40) can be prevented” ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat sink of Oi with the plurality of heat sinks of Park, in order to improve the heat dissipation performance and prevent deformation of the ceramic substrate unit ([0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Oi in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oi further teaches that the upper electrode (16) and the heat sink (20) are each formed in a thickness of 0.6 mm or more to 9.0 mm or less ([0045], 16 has a thickness t1 of 1.5 mm, and 20 has a thickness t2 of 1 mm).
Regarding claim 3, Oi in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park further teaches that the heat sink is partitioned into a plurality of heat sinks (500) by a space (510) formed by etching a portion of the heat sink in a thickness direction ([0058], see Fig. 7; see Fig. 5 as an example cross-section where 310 is an etching hole).
Regarding claim 4, Oi in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park further teaches that the heat sink is partitioned into a plurality of heat sinks (500) to have a predetermined volume corresponding to a volume of the upper electrode (20, labeled in Fig. 3) ([0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Oi in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 4. Park further teaches that a volume ratio obtained by dividing a total volume of the upper electrode (20) by a total volume of the heat sink (500) ranges from 0.9 to 1.1 ([0055], the volume ratio is 1 because they are equal).
Regarding claim 13, Oi in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oi further teaches, in Fig. 3a, a first bonding layer (43a, [0063]) disposed between the upper metal layer (15) of the ceramic substrate and the upper electrode (16a) and bonding the ceramic substrate (13/11/15) and the upper electrode (16a),
wherein the first bonding layer (43a) is made of a material including at least one of Ag, Cu, AgCu, and AgCuTi or a material including an Ag sintered body ([0061], including Cu).
Regarding claim 14, Oi in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oi further teaches, in Fig. 3a, a second bonding layer (43b, [0063]) disposed between the lower metal layer (13) of the ceramic substrate and the heat sink (20) and bonding the ceramic substrate (13/11/15) and the heat sink (20),
wherein the second bonding layer (43b) is made of a material including at least one of Ag, Cu, AgCu, and AgCuTi or a material including an Ag sintered body ([0061], including Cu).
Regarding claim 15, Oi in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oi further teaches that the upper electrode (16) and the heat sink (20) are made of any one of Cu, Al, and a Cu alloy ([0040], [0045], both are aluminum).
Claims 6-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 20170053852) in view of Park (KR 20170133637 A, citations made hereinafter to the attached English Machine Translation), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 6/25/2025, and further in view of Ikami (JP 2013225553 A, citations made hereinafter to English Machine Translation filed by Applicant on August 7, 2024), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 7, 2024.
Regarding claim 6, Oi in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 3. Oi in view of Park does not explicitly teach that a bottom surface of the lower metal layer is exposed through the space.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ikami teaches, in Fig. 3, that a bottom surface of the lower metal layer (3) is exposed through the space (between heat sinks 4, [0038]), in order to improve heat dissipation performance ([0004], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat sink configuration of Oi in view of Park with the heat sink configuration of Ikami, in order to improve heat dissipation performance ([0004], [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Oi in view of Park teaches the limitations of claim 3. Oi in view of Park does not teach that the plurality of heat sinks each include a flat portion having an upper surface bonded to the lower metal layer; and a plurality of protrusions disposed on a lower surface of the flat portion and forming a passage through which refrigerant flows, and the flat portions are disposed to be spaced apart from each other with the space interposed therebetween.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ikami teaches, in Fig. 3 (flipped), that the plurality of heat sinks (4, [0038]) each include a flat portion (40, [0038]) having an upper (lower for flipped Fig. 3) surface bonded to the lower metal layer (3, [0032]); and
a plurality of protrusions (410, [0032]) disposed on a lower surface of the flat portion (40) and forming a passage through which refrigerant flows ([0033]), and
the flat portions (40) are disposed to be spaced apart from each other with the space interposed therebetween (see Fig. 3),
in order to improve heat dissipation performance ([0004], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat sinks of Oi in view of Park with the heat sinks of Ikami, in order to improve heat dissipation performance ([0004], [0024]).
Regarding claim 9, Oi in view of Park and Ikami teaches the limitations of claim 7. Park further teaches that the plurality of heat sinks (500) each have the same area of the flat portion (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Oi in view of Park and Ikami teaches the limitations of claim 7. Ikami further teaches that the plurality of heat sinks (4) each have the same number of protrusions (410) (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Oi in view of Park and Ikami teaches the limitations of claim 7. Ikami further teaches, in Figs. 2-3, that the plurality of protrusions (410) are provided in a bar shape (see Fig. 2) and disposed horizontally (y-direction) at an interval.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 20170053852) in view of Park (KR 20170133637 A, citations made hereinafter to the attached English Machine Translation), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 6/25/2025, and Ikami (JP 2013225553 A, citations made hereinafter to English Machine Translation filed by Applicant on August 7, 2024), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 7, 2024, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210066154).
Regarding claim 8, Oi in view of Park and Ikami teaches the limitations of claim 7. Oi in view of Park and Ikami does not teach that a thickness of the flat portion is larger than a thickness of the protrusion.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches, in Fig. 36, that a thickness (f1_III) of the flat portion (301_III) is larger than a thickness (f2_III) of the protrusion (302a_III) ([0331], the flat portion can be 240 microns thick while the protrusion can be 160 microns thick), in order to improve the heat dissipation effect ([0317]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat sinks of Oi in view of Park and Ikami with the thicknesses of Kim, in order to improve the heat dissipation effect ([0317]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 20170053852) in view of Park (KR 20170133637 A, citations made hereinafter to the attached English Machine Translation), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 6/25/2025, and Ikami (JP 2013225553 A, citations made hereinafter to English Machine Translation filed by Applicant on August 7, 2024), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 7, 2024, and further in view of Dogruoz et al. (US 20210112686).
Regarding claim 11, Oi in view of Park and Ikami teaches the limitations of claim 7. Oi in view of Park and Ikami does not teach that two heat sinks whose end portions face among the plurality of heat sinks each have the protrusion located on the same virtual line when the virtual line is drawn in a direction in which the end portions face.
In a similar field of endeavor, Dogruoz teaches, in Figs. 2 and 5, that two heat sinks (160, 170, [0031]) whose end portions face among the plurality of heat sinks each have the protrusion (165, 175, [0031]) located on the same virtual line when the virtual line is drawn in a direction in which the end portions face (see Fig. 2, [0031]), in order to correspond to the airflow direction ([0031]) and improve the cooling effect ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat sink protrusion configuration of Oi in view of Park and Ikami with the heat sink protrusion configuration of Dogruoz, in order to correspond to the airflow direction ([0031]) and improve the cooling effect ([0013]).
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 20170053852) in view of Lai et al. (US 20210305122).
Regarding claim 16, Oi teaches, in Figs. 3a-3b, a method manufacturing a ceramic substrate unit ([0065]), comprising:
preparing a ceramic substrate (13/11/15) including a metal layer provided on upper (15, [0040]) and lower surfaces (13, [0038]) of a ceramic base (11, [0038]) (see Fig. 3a, [0065]);
bonding an upper electrode (16, [0040]) formed so that a semiconductor chip (30, [0038], see Fig. 1c) is mounted thereon to an upper metal layer (15) of the ceramic substrate (13/11/15) (see Fig. 3b);
preparing a heat sink (20, [0038], [0065]); and
bonding the heat sink (20) to a lower metal layer (13) of the ceramic substrate (13/11/15) (see Fig. 3b, [0065]).
Oi does not teach preparing heat sinks partitioned into a plurality of heat sinks before bonding the heat sink.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lai teaches preparing heat sinks partitioned into a plurality of heat sinks (400, see Figs. 5 and 7) before bonding the heat sink ([0024]), “the two pieces of the heat sink lid 400 may be mounted to the underlying frame structure 300 in separate steps or in one step” which means that the heat sink is partitioned into two heat sinks before they are mounted onto a multi-layered substrate unit 300), in order to reduce stress of the package structure ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat sink of Oi with the preparing of the plurality of heat sinks of Lai, in order to reduce stress of the package structure ([0022]).
Regarding claim 17, Oi in view of Lai teaches the limitations of claim 16. Lai further teaches that the preparing of the heat sink (400, Figs. 5 and 7) includes forming heat sinks partitioned into the plurality of heat sinks by a space (G2) formed by etching a portion of the heat sink in a thickness direction ([0020], [0024]).
Regarding claim 19, Oi in view of Lai teaches the limitations of claim 16. Oi further teaches, in Fig. 3a, that the bonding of the upper electrode (16a) to the upper metal layer (15) of the ceramic substrate includes bonding the upper electrode (16a) to the upper metal layer (15) via a first bonding layer (43a, [0063]) disposed between the upper metal layer (15) and the upper electrode (16), and
the first bonding layer (43a) is made of a material including at least one of Ag, Cu, AgCu, and AgCuTi or a material including an Ag sintered body ([0061], including Cu).
Regarding claim 20, Oi in view of Lai teaches the limitations of claim 16. Oi further teaches, in Fig. 3a, that the bonding of the heat sink (20) includes bonding the heat sink (20) to the lower metal layer (13) via a second bonding layer (43b, [0063]) disposed between the lower metal layer (13) and the heat sink (20), and
the second bonding layer (43b) is made of a material including at least one of Ag, Cu, AgCu, and AgCuTi or a material including an Ag sintered body ([0061], including Cu).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 20170053852) in view of Lai et al. (US 20210305122), and further in view of Park (KR 20170133637 A, citations made hereinafter to the attached English Machine Translation), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 6/25/2025.
Regarding claim 18, Oi in view of Lai teaches the limitations of claim 17. Oi in view of Lai does not teach that a volume ratio obtained by dividing a total volume of the upper electrode by a total volume of the heat sink ranges from 0.9 to 1.1.
In a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches that the preparing of the heat sink (500) includes forming the space (510) so that a volume ratio obtained by dividing a total volume of the upper electrode (20) by a total volume of the heat sink (500) ranges from 0.9 to 1.1 1 ([0055], the volume ratio is 1 because they are equal), so that “the heat dissipation performance can be improved, and deformation of the circuit board due to heat generation of the electronic component (40) can be prevented” ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the preparing of the heat sink of Oi in view of Lai with the volume ratio of Park, in order to improve the heat dissipation performance and prevent deformation of the ceramic substrate unit ([0059]).
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi et al. (US 20260215261) teaches a plurality of heat sinks 170 similar to that of claim 1 (but is not prior art).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA HEERA SON whose telephone number is 703-756-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30-9 PM ET.
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, Yara Green can be reached on 571-270-3035. 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.
/ERIKA H SON/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
