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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 uses multiple “and/or” which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of this examination, “high” in claims will be interpreted as noted in paragraph 0034 of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein each of the one or more active elements are added at equal to or less than 5 wt. %”, and the claim also recites “wherein the active braze comprises exactly one active element” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of vbcgroup “Active Braze Alloys and their Applications” and in further view of Morgan Advanced Materials “Cusil-ABA”.
Regarding claim 1, AAPA teaches:
A brazing method for obtaining a brazed joint, the method comprising brazing an AgC contact to a Cu carrier using a braze [AgC contacts are brazed to Cu carriers; 0003-0004].
AAPA does not teach:
directly brazing with an active braze,
wherein the brazing is performed over a time of equal to or less than 20 seconds and at a temperature of equal to or less than 1000 °C, and
wherein the active braze is an alloy comprising one or more active elements, the one or more active elements reacting with exposed carbon of the AgC contact to form metal carbides and/or to dissolve the carbon.
Concerning the use of an active braze and active element:
vbcgroup teaches, “Active brazing is used when conventional brazing will not work. This is typically with ceramic materials such as alumina, silicon carbide, sapphire, diamond and graphite… It uses braze alloy in foil, paste, wire or preforms to join ceramic to ceramic or frequently ceramic to metal usually in a vacuum furnace… In the case of active braze alloys however a reaction takes place between the active element within the filler metal, usually titanium and the oxides, carbides or nitrides. This forms titanium oxide, titanium carbide or titanium nitride which allows the filler metal to wet the surface of the ceramic. Titanium is the most commonly used active element in commercially available braze alloys… There is an array of commercially available active braze alloys with brazing temperatures ranging from 700⁰C to over 1050⁰C. The compositions range from less than 1% active element (VBC Alloy 4081, Gold ABA) to 70%(VBC Alloy 4028, Ticuni), though 1%-4% is more typical.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the conventional braze of AAPA with an active braze comprising Ti, by incorporating the active braze and process of using as taught by vbcgroup, so that the active braze is interposed between the AgC contact and Cu carrier in order to directly braze the AgC contact to the Cu carrier; note the ability to directly braze materials that cannot be brazed traditionally is the main advantage of active brazes. As for the active element, an active braze inherently has an active element as without it the braze would not be an active braze. Even so, vbcgroup teaches the active element may be Ti, which is the most commonly used.
Concerning the brazing temperature and time”
While AAPA teaches that Ag-35.25 Cu-1.75 Ti foil, aka Cusil ABA, is commercially available; 0019, Morgan will be used to further demonstrate the obviousness of choosing Cusil ABA.
Morgan teaches Cusil ABA allows ceramic-to-ceramic and ceramic-to-metal surfaces to be brazed without metallizing, firing and electroplating, cuts time and costs in manufacture of ceramic/metal assemblies, allows one step bonding to ceramics, can bond copper and graphite, has a liquidus of 815°C, and has a recommended brazing temperature of 830-850°C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Cusil ABA for any of the reasons noted by Morgan, or due to brazing temperature, cost, availability, and/or familiarity. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to braze at less than 1000 °C since the recommended brazing temperature is 830-850 °C. As for how long, the amount of time will vary due to variables such as the size of the components, the amount of braze, the heat source, etc. Determining the time needed to complete the brazing is well within the ability one of ordinary skill in the art as one does not want to waste time or have a lack of melted braze. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to braze for 20 seconds or less due to the size of the components, the amount of braze, the heat source, etc., minus any unexpected results.
Concerning any claimed results:
Since the prior art process, i.e. the process based on the combined prior art references above, is identical to the claimed process it is the examiner’s position that the prior art process will achieve any claimed result; such as forming metal carbides and/or dissolving carbon. This reasoning applies to any claim below where a result is claimed.
Regarding claims 3-9, 11, 12, and 16, these claims are addressed in the rejection of claim 1 due to the incorporation of Cusil-ABA.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of vbcgroup “Active Braze Alloys and their Applications” and Morgan Advanced Materials “Cusil-ABA” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bischof et al. (US 8,412,877 B2).
Regarding claim 10, AAPA does not teach:
in a processing step separate from the brazing, producing a coated AgC contact, coated with the active braze such, and using the coated AgC contact as the AgC contact, and/or
in a processing step separate from the brazing, producing a coated Cu carrier coated with the active braze, and using the coated Cu carrier as the Cu carrier.
Bischof teaches coating plate (16) with brazing material prior to assembly for brazing; 2:65-3:8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to coat the contact and/or the carrier as taught by Bischof because it is known to apply brazing material in this manner. One would have also been motivated to do so in order to speed up the assembly process, to ensure the proper amount and placement of brazing material, and/or to sell/provide the workpieces as ready for brazing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights