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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 22, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 and 20 in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 20 are pending, claim 1 is independent.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Specifically, “There is provided” is language that can be implied AND the abstract is too short.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. (US 2023/0112081 A1), hereinafter Matsunaga (of record in the application).
Regarding claim 1, Matsunaga teaches a copper sheet ([0039]) joined (bound) to a ceramic substrate ([0042]; [0033]; i.e. on a surface of the ceramic substrate) for use as a material for electrical and electronic components ([0033]; i.e. a copper-ceramic bonded substrate), KAM values of 1.50 or less and because of this the dislocation density is relatively low ([0021]). KAM values correlate to dislocation density, so lower KAM values (i.e. approaching 0 from 1.50) have lower dislocation densities than “relatively low”.
Therefore, the “low dislocation density” of Matsunaga overlaps the range claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 6, Matsunaga teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Matsunaga further teaches the content of Cu is set to 99.96 mass% or more with P of 0.01-3.00 ppm, Ag and Fe is 3.0 to less than 100.0 mass ppm and inevitable impurities as a balance ([0052]; [0017]). Examiner notes this calculates as ≤ 396.99 ppm left for the balance of inevitable impurities. Matsunaga further teaches Al, Cr, Sn, Be, Cn, Mg, Ni and Pb in total of 2.0 to < 100 ppm ([0063]-[0064]), S of 2.0 to 20.0 ppm ([0053]), and inevitable impurities of Mg, Sr, Ba, Ti, Zr, Hf and Y of 10.0 mass ppm or less ([0057]). This takes the range of balance of inevitable impurities to ≤ 392.99 ppm. Matsunaga further teaches these inevitable impurities other than the above described elements include a number of elements, including As, Sb, Zn and O and that it is preferable to reduce these to avoid a decrease in electrical conductivity ([0066]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Matsunaga teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Matsunaga further teaches P of 0.01-3.00 ppm ([0017]) and S of 2.0 to 20.0 ppm ([0053]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claim 5, Matsunaga teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Matsunaga further teaches Ag and Fe is 3.0 to less than 100.0 mass ppm ([0017]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claim 7, Matsunaga teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Matsunaga further teaches the content of Cu is set to 99.96 mass% or more, with P of 0.01-3.00 ppm, Ag and Fe is 3.0 to less than 100.0 mass ppm and inevitable impurities as a balance ([0052]; [0017]) and a maximum Cu limit of 99.999 mass% ([0044]), this optionally leaves no ppm available left for any impurities. Matsunaga further teaches inevitable impurities optionally include O and that it is preferable to reduce it to avoid a decrease in electrical conductivity ([0066]). The calculation possible in Matsunaga includes 0% (ppm) oxygen, i.e. oxygen free copper. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga as applied to claims 1-7 and 20 above, and further in view of Ozaki (WO 2021/200242 A1, herein referring to patent family member US 2023/0068210 A1 for translation; both of record).
Regarding claim 8, Matsunaga teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Matsunaga does not specifically teach a brazing bonded layer is provided between the ceramic substrate and copper sheet and the copper sheet is bonded to the ceramic substrate interposing the brazing bonded layer.
Ozaki is in the similar field of endeavor of metal-ceramics bonded substrates ([0001]) and teaches a metal-ceramics bonded substrate including bonding a metal plate and ceramic substrate to each other using a brazing material ([0033]) by bonding the ceramic substrate and metal plate to each other by applying the brazing material and heating in a vacuum atmosphere ([0035]) and the metal plate is copper ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the metal-ceramic bonded substrate of Matsunaga to incorporate the brazing bonded layer of Ozaki. The motivation for doing so would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed (cited above) and the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art was the lack of combining the metal-ceramic bonded substrate of Matsunaga to incorporate the brazing bonded layer of Ozaki (finding 1). One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods (as taught by Ozaki [0033]-[0034]) and the elements would have performed the same function together as separately (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable as it is a well-established scientific field(finding 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784