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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (1 – 7) & Species (A I) in the reply filed on (5 – 21 – 2026) is acknowledged. Highlighting, that Species (IB) was elected in a subsequent phone call with applicant on Yoon Ham (703 – 535 – 7340) on (8 – 10 – 2026) due to an incomplete election. Consequently, Invention II (Claim(s) 8 – 14) is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 same reply filed on (5 – 21 – 2026).
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by / unpatentable
over Kaga et al. (US 20090224399 A1, hereinafter Kaga) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200165167 A1, hereinafter Kim)Regarding claim 1,
A method for controlling thermal conductivity of a silicon nitride substrate, comprising the steps of:
manufacturing a silicon nitride substrate; and
adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate,
wherein the step of manufacturing a silicon nitride substrate comprises:
preparing a slurry by mixing a silicon nitride powder,
a ceramic additive containing magnesium oxide, and
a solvent;
forming a sheet by molding the slurry;
forming a stack structure by sandwiching at least one sheet between a lower plate and an upper plate;
subjecting the stack structure to a degreasing process; and
subjecting the stack structure to a sintering process,
wherein thermal conductivity of the silicon nitride substrate is inversely proportional to the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate.
Kaga teaches the following:
([0008]) teaches that an object of the present invention is to provide a silicon nitride substrate having warpage and surface roughness appropriately adjusted, a method of manufacturing the same.
([0040]) teaches that a heat treatment is performed with a plurality of silicon nitride substrate being stacked in order to adjust a vaporization amount of magnesium oxide, yttrium oxide and the like, which functions as a sintering additive, to control the growth of columnar grains contained in the silicon nitride substrate, and thus to control the degree of orientation fa of the silicon nitride substrate.
([0037]) teaches a source material adjustment and mixing process (a), magnesium oxide of 3 to 4 wt % and at least one kind of oxide of a rare-earth element of 2 to 5 wt % are mixed with silicon nitride source material powder with a total weight percentage of 5 to 8 wt %. ([0038]) adds that the source material slurry is then a sheet molded. Where the mixing process is understood to produce a slurry comprising a silicon nitride source material that is sheet molded.
([0037]) teaches a source material adjustment and mixing process (a), magnesium oxide of 3 to 4 wt % and at least one kind of oxide of a rare-earth element of 2 to 5 wt % are mixed with silicon nitride source material powder with a total weight percentage of 5 to 8 wt %. Where the mixing process is understood to produce a slurry comprising a ceramic additive containing magnesium oxide that is sheet molded.
([0038]) teaches a solution, an organic binder, a plasticizing material, and the like are also mixed with them using a ball mill or the like. Here, it is preferable to use above-described yttrium oxide or the like as at least one kind of oxide of a rare-earth element. Where, the solution is understood acts as applicant’s solvent. Highlighting, that the Korean equivalent of Kaga (KR 101569421 B1 - translation provided) reads “A solvent, an organic binder, a plasticizing material…”.
([0038]) adds that the source material slurry is then a sheet molded. Where the mixing process is understood to produce a slurry comprising a silicon nitride source material that is sheet molded. Where, the source material slurry is understood to be sheet molded.
([0042]) teaches that (Figs. 3 & 4) are illustrative diagrams showing a method of applying a pressure during the heat treatment process (d). In FIG. 3, the silicon nitride substrates 10 are interposed between ceramic plate members 14 such as boron nitride BN and loaded with a press weight 16. ([0093]) teaches that a heat treatment process, since each outer surface of the uppermost and lowermost substrates out of a plurality of stacked silicon nitride substrates makes contact with a corresponding plate member 14, vaporization of the sintering additive such as MgO or Y2O3 is promoted on the contact surface with the plate member 14. As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4) two plate members 14 are provided in which forming a stack structure by sandwiching at least one sheet between a lower plate and an upper plate (plate members 14) is provided.
([0040]) teaches that a heat treatment process (d), a plurality of silicon nitride substrates obtained after the sintering process are stacked, and a heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 1,550 °C to 1,700 °C with a pressure of 0.5 to 6.0 kPa. With such a heat treatment with a pressure, it is possible to prevent warpage of the silicon nitride substrate and to regularly distribute grain boundary phases including magnesium Mg on the substrate surface, thereby improving bending strength.
([0028]) teaches that since the magnesium and the rare-earth element (e.g., yttrium) function as a sintering additive for growing columnar grains of silicon nitride, the growth of the columnar grains may be insufficient, and the content of columnar grains having short longitudinal length increases when its content is small. Accordingly, the bending strength and the fracture toughness of the silicon nitride substrate decrease. Meanwhile, when the contents of magnesium and a rare-earth element increase, the growth of columnar grains is stimulated, so that the content of columnar grains having a large longitudinal length increases. Accordingly, the degree of orientation fa of the silicon nitride substrate also increases, and the surface roughness increases. In this embodiment, each of the contents of magnesium and a rare-earth element is set to the aforementioned. Accordingly, the contents of magnesium and the rare-earth element are understood to impact several properties including but not limited to columnar grains, the bending strength and the fracture toughness, and the degree of orientation fa of the silicon nitride substrate fabricated. Consequently, one would be motivated to optimize the contents of magnesium and the rare-earth element implemented in the composition. Consequently, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Additionally, it should be noted the courts held that when applicant discovers a new property or unexpected advantage, that results from following the prior art process or combining known elements has been shown does not make an otherwise obvious claim patentable, See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) & MPEP § 2145.
Regarding Claim 1, Kaga is silent on details regarding the solvent, subjecting the stack structure to a degreasing process and subjecting the stack structure to a sintering process and the thermal conductivity of the silicon nitride substrate is inversely proportional to the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate. In analogous art for tape casting slurry composition for preparing a silicon nitride sintered body, Kim suggests details regarding the solvent, subjecting the stack structure to a degreasing process subjecting the stack structure to a sintering process and the thermal conductivity of the silicon nitride substrate is inversely proportional to the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate, and in this regard, Kim teaches the following:
([0008]) teaches the present invention provides a tape casting slurry composition for preparing a silicon nitride sintered body.
([0040]) teaches forming a tape casting slurry comprising. ([0041]) 100 parts by weight of raw material powders comprising silicon nitride powders and sintering aid powders. Where forming a slurry comprising silicon nitride powder that are molded by tape casting s is understood to be disclosed.
([0059]) teaches that the raw material powders of the present invention comprise sintering aid powders in addition to the silicon nitride powders, so as to decrease a sintering temperature and scavenge oxygen, and the like, thereby improving the properties of a sintered body. ([0061]) adds that specifically, as the sintering aid, rare earth element oxide, alkali earth metal oxide and combinations thereof may be used, and more specifically, one or more selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide(MgO), yttrium oxide(Y2O3). Where the slurry is understood to comprise, a sintering aid consisting of magnesium oxide(MgO) amongst others.
([0010]) teaches that the slurry comprises 50 to 100 parts by weight of a solvent.
([0032]) molding the composition to prepare a green sheet. As such, molding a green sheet is understood to comprise of tape casting the slurry.
([0089]) teaches in order to obtain silicon nitride sintered body with an appropriate thickness, the green sheet may be used in a monolayer, or plural sheets may be laminated. Where providing a or plural sheets to obtain an appropriate thickness is understood to be forming a stack.
([0089]) teaches that in case plural green sheets are laminated; in order to minimize interface between layers and improve interlayer adhesion, a lamination process may be further conducted before the degreasing step. Wherein, although the process conditions are not specifically limited, the lamination step may be conducted by pressing at a temperature of 70 to 110° C. using a common laminator. Where the lamination step conducted at a temperature of 70 to 110° C may be viewed as applicant’s degreasing processAlternatively, ([0090]) teaches that after preparing a green sheet as explained above, a degreasing process is conducted so as to remove organic materials and carbon such as a solvent, binder, dispersant, plasticizer, and the like included in the green sheet. ([0091]) The degreasing process may be conducted by heat treating under air or nitrogen atmosphere, and the heat treatment temperature may be preferably in the range of 400 to 700° C., or 550 to 650° C., and the heat treatment time may be preferably 6 to 9 hours. Where the degreasing process conducted at a temperature of 400 to 700° C may be viewed as applicant’s degreasing process. As such, a subjecting the stack structure to a degreasing process is understood to be disclosed.
([0092]The degreased green sheet is subjected to secondary heat treatment to finally obtain a silicon nitride sintered body. The sintering step is conducted by gas pressure sintering(GPS), and it may be preferably conducted at a gas pressure sintering furnace temperature of 1600 to 2000° C., preferably 1850 to 1900° C., under nitrogen atmosphere and 8 to 10 atm conditions. Where the secondary heat treatment may be viewed as applicant’s sintering process. As such, subjecting the stack structure to a sintering process is understood to be disclosed.
([0062]) teaches that if the content of the sintering aid powders is excessively high, thermal conductivity of the finally prepared silicon nitride sintered body may be deteriorated, and thus, the content may be appropriately controlled within the above range. As such, the thermal conductivity of the finally prepared silicon nitride is inversely proportional to the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate. Namely, the sintering aids, including magnesium oxide(MgO) and yttrium oxide(Y2O3) amongst others is found to impact the thermal conductivity of the finally prepared silicon nitride sintered body. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
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 production method/apparatus for manufacturing a silicon nitride substrate having appropriately adjusted warpage of Kaga. By modifying the process to include a solvent, subjecting the stack structure to a degreasing process prior to subjecting the stack structure to a sintering process and the thermal conductivity of the silicon nitride substrate is inversely proportional to the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate, as taught by Kim. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a solvent as it provides for tailoring the viscosity of the slurry composition making it suitable for tape casting, ([0069]), while implementing a degreasing process prior to subjecting the stack structure to a sintering process provides for removing organic components such as a solvent, binder, dispersant, plasticizer, and the like included in the green sheet prior to sintering, ([0090]), and optimizing the content of the residual magnesium content as it provides for tailoring the thermal conductivity of the silicon nitride substrate, ([0062]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the step of adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a temperature of the sintering process.
Kaga teaches the following:
([0039]) teaches that a sintering process (c), the sheet-molded body is inserted into a furnace and sintered in a nitrogen atmosphere with a pressure of 0.5 to 1.0 MPa at a temperature of 1,800 °C to 2,000 °C, so as to provide a silicon nitride substrate. ([0032]) notes that Magnesium oxide MgO and yttrium oxide Y2O3 used as a sintering additive in the silicon nitride substrate react with Si3N4 or SiO2 contained in Si3N4 to form a liquid phase in a sintering process. While the magnesium oxide MgO helps to generate the liquid phase at a relatively low temperate and promote the sintering process, the liquid phase containing MgO is susceptible to volatilization or segregation and is apt to irregularly distribute the grain boundary phases containing Mg generated from the liquid phase particularly on the substrate surface frequently exposed to a high temperature in a sintering process. As such, it is understood that MgO / Mg is susceptible to volatilization or segregation at higher temperatures during liquid phase in a sintering process. Accordingly, the sintering temperature is understood to impact the volatilization / removal of residual magnesium of MgO / Mg from the articles surface. Consequently, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Furthermore, ([0039]) discloses a range of possible sintering temperature. With the adjusting a residual magnesium content understood to be a functional limitation which is a consequence of the sintering process. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the temperature of the sintering process is adjusted to 1,700 °C to 2,000 °C, and
the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate decreases with increasing temperature of the sintering process.
Kaga teaches the following:
([0039]) teaches that a sintering process (c), the sheet-molded body is inserted into a furnace and sintered in a nitrogen atmosphere with a pressure of 0.5 to 1.0 MPa at a temperature of 1,800 °C to 2,000 °C, so as to provide a silicon nitride substrate. ([0032]) notes that Magnesium oxide MgO and yttrium oxide Y2O3 used as a sintering additive in the silicon nitride substrate react with Si3N4 or SiO2 contained in Si3N4 to form a liquid phase in a sintering process. While the magnesium oxide MgO helps to generate the liquid phase at a relatively low temperate and promote the sintering process, the liquid phase containing MgO is susceptible to volatilization or segregation and is apt to irregularly distribute the grain boundary phases containing Mg generated from the liquid phase particularly on the substrate surface frequently exposed to a high temperature in a sintering process. As such, it is understood that MgO / Mg is susceptible to volatilization or segregation at higher temperatures during liquid phase in a sintering process. Accordingly, the sintering temperature is understood to impact the volatilization / removal of residual magnesium of MgO / Mg from the articles surface. Consequently, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Furthermore, ([0039]) discloses a range of possible sintering temperature. Where the adjusting a residual magnesium content understood to be a functional limitation which is a consequence of the sintering process. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the step of adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a size of the sheet.
Kaga teaches the following:
([0040]) teaches that the heat treatment is performed with a plurality of silicon nitride substrate being stacked in order to adjust a vaporization amount of magnesium oxide, yttrium oxide and the like, which functions as a sintering additive, to control the growth of columnar grains contained in the silicon nitride substrate, and thus to control the degree of orientation fa of the silicon nitride substrate. Where the adjusting a residual magnesium content understood to be a functional limitation which is a consequence of the adjusting a size of the sheet. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. Alternatively and/or additionally, ([0038]) teaches that a sheet molding is performed to obtain a plate having a predetermined thickness by way of a doctor blade method known in the art. Here, the thickness of the sheet-molded body may be appropriately determined depending on its use. For example, the thickness may be set to 0.1 to 1.0 mm. Where the thickness of the sheet-molded body via doctor blade provides for adjusting a size of the sheet. Where the adjusting a residual magnesium content understood to be a functional limitation which is a consequence of the adjusting a size of the sheet. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. Alternatively and/or additionally, ([0039]) teaches that in a sintering process (c), the sheet-molded body is inserted into a furnace and sintered in a nitrogen atmosphere with a pressure of 0.5 to 1.0 MPa at a temperature of 1,800 °C to 2,000 °C, so as to provide a silicon nitride substrate. Where having a pressure range of 0.5 to 1.0 MPa is understood to tailor the thickness / adjusting a size of the sheet. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144 Alternatively and/or additionally, ([0060]) teaches that the heat conduction rate was measured in accordance with a standard JIS-R1611 by cutting out a measurement specimen having a width of 5 mm from the silicon nitride substrate. Accordingly, cutting out a measurement specimen having a desired width is understood to tailor the width / adjusting a size of the sheet. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the step of adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a size of the sheet.
Kaga teaches the following:
([0040]) teaches that the heat treatment is performed with a plurality of silicon nitride substrate being stacked in order to adjust a vaporization amount of magnesium oxide, yttrium oxide and the like, which functions as a sintering additive, to control the growth of columnar grains contained in the silicon nitride substrate, and thus to control the degree of orientation fa of the silicon nitride substrate. Where the adjusting a residual magnesium content understood to be a functional limitation which is a consequence of the adjusting a size of the sheet. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. Alternatively and/or additionally, ([0038]) teaches that a sheet molding is performed to obtain a plate having a predetermined thickness by way of a doctor blade method known in the art. Here, the thickness of the sheet-molded body may be appropriately determined depending on its use. For example, the thickness may be set to 0.1 to 1.0 mm. Where the thickness of the sheet-molded body via doctor blade provides for adjusting a size of the sheet. Where the adjusting a residual magnesium content understood to be a functional limitation which is a consequence of the adjusting a size of the sheet. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 4, Kaga is silent on details regarding the step of adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a size of the sheet. In analogous art as applied above, Kim suggests details regarding the step of adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a size of the sheet, and in this regard, Kim teaches the following:
([0089]) teaches in order to obtain silicon nitride sintered body with an appropriate thickness, the green sheet may be used in a monolayer, or plural sheets may be laminated. Where providing a or plural sheets to obtain an appropriate thickness is understood to be forming a stack. In case plural green sheets are laminated; in order to minimize interface between layers and improve interlayer adhesion, a lamination process may be further conducted before the degreasing step. As such, stacking plural sheets that are laminated provides for adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a size of the sheet.Alternatively and/or additionally, ([0104]) teaches that it can be confirmed that when the mixing ratio of β-phase and α-phase silicon nitride fulfills the range of the present invention, a silicon nitride sintered body having low shrinkage and less external defects can be prepared. As such, during sintering shrinkage occurs which acts as applicant’s adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a size of the sheet. Alternatively, and/or additionally, ([0044]) teaches that it can be seen that, after the blast process in which the abrasive particles 22 are blasted to perform a grinding, columnar grains having a large size on the substrate surface are grinded, and then roughness of the substrate surface decreases.
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 production method/apparatus for manufacturing a silicon nitride substrate having appropriately adjusted warpage of Kaga. By modifying the process to include a step of adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a size of the sheet, as taught by Kim. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a step of adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a size of the sheet as it provides for tailoring various dimensions of the silicon nitride substrate, ([0044], [0089] & ([0104]) which in turn to provide for adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4,
Wherein the size of the sheet is adjusted to M x N, each of M and N ranges from 60 mm to 300 mm, and
the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate increases with increasing size of the sheet.
Kaga teaches the following:
([0038]) teaches that Here, the thickness of the sheet-molded body may be appropriately determined depending on its use. For example, the thickness may be set to 0.1 to 1.0 mm. ([0046]) notes that a plurality of silicon nitride substrates obtained after the sintering process are stacked. As illustrated in (Fig. 4) a plurality of substrates are provided (10), leading to a stack 10 mm high. Highlighting, that Kaga puts no limit on the amount of substrates that bay be stacked. As such, the change in size case law may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144. With ([0057]) noting that the bending strength was measured by a three-point bending test in accordance with a standard JIS-B1601. Specifically, a specimen of the silicon nitride substrate having a width of 4 mm was prepared. ([0060]) adding that the heat conduction rate was measured in accordance with a standard JIS-R1611 by cutting out a measurement specimen having a width of 5 mm from the silicon nitride substrate. As such, the width of the sample of which the specimen was cut is understood to be large than 5 mm. Additionally, depending on the test / use of the sample the width of the sample was adjusted and tailored. As such, the width is also understood to impact the type of uses that the sheet-molded body may be implemented within. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Additionally, the change in size case law may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Furthermore, the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate increases with increasing size of the sheet is understood to be a functional limitation of the silicon nitride substrate fabricated. Consequently, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the ceramic additive comprises yttrium oxide (Y2O3) and magnesium oxide (MgO), and
the step of adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting an atomic ratio of magnesium (Mg) to yttrium (Y) in the ceramic additive.
Kaga teaches the following:
([0028]) teaches since the magnesium and the rare-earth element (e.g., yttrium) function as a sintering additive for growing columnar grains of silicon nitride, the growth of the columnar grains may be insufficient, and the content of columnar grains having short longitudinal length increases when its content is small. Where, the ceramic additive comprises yttrium oxide (Y2O3) and magnesium oxide (MgO).
([0035]) teaches that when the ratio between contents of magnesium and yttrium is not within an appropriate range, they may not sufficiently serve as a sintering additive. As a result, the sintering of the silicon nitride substrate may not be promoted, or a weak grain boundary phase may be formed in the silicon nitride substrate, and thus, bending strength decreases. In the present embodiment, each of the contents of magnesium and yttrium is limited in the range in order to adjust such properties. Namely, adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting an atomic ratio of magnesium (Mg) to yttrium (Y) in the ceramic additive. Accordingly, the contents of magnesium and the rare-earth element are understood to impact several properties including but not limited to columnar grains, the bending strength and the fracture toughness, and the degree of orientation fa of the silicon nitride substrate fabricated. Consequently, one would be motivated to optimize the contents of magnesium and the rare-earth element implemented in the composition. Consequently, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein the atomic ratio of magnesium (Mg) to yttrium (Y) in the ceramic additive ranges from 2 to 5, and
the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate increases with increasing atomic ratio of magnesium (Mg) to yttrium (Y) in the ceramic additive.
Kaga teaches the following:
([0035]) teaches that it is preferable to contain magnesium and yttrium of contents to set a ratio of (MgO)/(Y2O3) as oxide to 0.62 to 2.2. Where a (oxide) ratio of (MgO)/(Y2O3) of 0.62 to 2.2 yields an atomic ratio of Mg to Y from 1.74 to 6.16 which is found to overlap with applicant’s range of an atomic ratio of magnesium (Mg) to yttrium (Y) in the ceramic additive ranges from 2 to 5.
([0035]) teaches that when the ratio between contents of magnesium and yttrium is not within an appropriate range, they may not sufficiently serve as a sintering additive. As a result, the sintering of the silicon nitride substrate may not be promoted, or a weak grain boundary phase may be formed in the silicon nitride substrate, and thus, bending strength decreases. In the present embodiment, each of the contents of magnesium and yttrium is limited in the range in order to adjust such properties. Namely, adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting an atomic ratio of magnesium (Mg) to yttrium (Y) in the ceramic additive. Accordingly, the contents of magnesium and the rare-earth element are understood to impact several properties including but not limited to columnar grains, the bending strength and the fracture toughness, and the degree of orientation fa of the silicon nitride substrate fabricated. Consequently, one would be motivated to optimize the contents of magnesium and the rare-earth element implemented in the composition. Consequently, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Additionally, it should be noted the courts held that when applicant discovers a new property or unexpected advantage, that results from following the prior art process or combining known elements has been shown does not make an otherwise obvious claim patentable, See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) & MPEP § 2145.
B.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by / unpatentable over Kaga in view of Kim in further view of Tsugawa et al. (US 20220177377 A1, hereinafter Tsugawa)Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4,
Wherein the size of the sheet is adjusted to M x N, each of M and N ranges from 60 mm to 300 mm, and
the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate increases with increasing size of the sheet.
Kaga teaches the following:
([0038]) teaches that Here, the thickness of the sheet-molded body may be appropriately determined depending on its use. For example, the thickness may be set to 0.1 to 1.0 mm. ([0046]) notes that a plurality of silicon nitride substrates obtained after the sintering process are stacked. As illustrated in (Fig. 4) a plurality of substrates are provided (10), leading to a stack 10 mm high. Highlighting, that Kaga puts no limit on the amount of substrates that bay be stacked. As such, the change in size case law may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144. With ([0057]) noting that the bending strength was measured by a three-point bending test in accordance with a standard JIS-B1601. Specifically, a specimen of the silicon nitride substrate having a width of 4 mm was prepared. ([0060]) adding that the heat conduction rate was measured in accordance with a standard JIS-R1611 by cutting out a measurement specimen having a width of 5 mm from the silicon nitride substrate. As such, the width of the sample of which the specimen was cut is understood to be large than 5 mm. Additionally, depending on the test / use of the sample the width of the sample was adjusted and tailored. As such, the width is also understood to impact the type of uses that the sheet-molded body may be implemented within.
Regarding Claim 5, Kaga as modified by Kim is silent on details regarding the size of the sheet is adjusted to M x N, each of M and N ranges from 60 mm to 300 mm. In analogous art for STATMENT, AUTHOR suggests details regarding the size of the sheet is adjusted to M x N, each of M and N ranges from 60 mm to 300 mm, and in this regard, AUTHOR teaches the following:
([0182]) teaches that, the molded sheet was punched to obtain a punched sheet. A size of the punched sheet was adjusted so that a size of the silicon nitride substrate after firing was 148 mm × 200 mm × 0.32 mm. ([0198]) notes that through the above steps, a silicon nitride substrate having a size of 148 mm × 200 mm × 0.32 mm was obtained.As such a size of 148 mm × 200 mm with a thickness of 0.32 mm is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of for the size of the sheet is adjusted to M x N, each of M and N ranges from 60 mm to 300 mm.Additionally, the change in size case law may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Highlighting, the residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate increases with increasing size of the sheet is understood to be a functional limitation of the silicon nitride substrate fabricated. Consequently, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
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 production method/apparatus for manufacturing a silicon nitride substrate having appropriately adjusted warpage of Kaga. By modifying the process to include a step of adjusting a residual magnesium content in the silicon nitride substrate comprises adjusting a size of the sheet, as taught by Kim. Highlighting, one would be motivated have the size of the sheet be adjusted to M x N, each of M and N ranges from 60 mm to 300 mm, as taught by AUTHOR. Highlighting, one would be motivated to have the size of the sheet be adjusted to M x N, each of M and N ranges from 60 mm to 300 mm as it provides for a silicon nitride substrate had a relatively large size, ([0232]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20220371963 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) The present invention relates to a method for manufacturing a silicon nitride substrate and, more specifically, comprises the steps of: forming a slurry by mixing silicon nitride powder, a ceramic additive, and a solvent; molding the slurry to form sheets; sandwiching at least one of the sheets between a lower plate and an upper plate to form a stacked structure; degreasing the stacked structure; and sintering the stacked structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights