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 9, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 9, 14, and 15, “an average value” should be “the average value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 is identical to the last paragraph of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 2, 4-7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga et al. (US 2009/0101392 A1) in view of Yuasa et asl. (US 2022/0225498 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaga teaches:
A method for manufacturing a bonded body [circuit board (1); figure 1], comprising:
a process of disposing a brazing material [Ag-Cu-Ti brazing material (5); 0047] between a ceramic substrate [substrate (2)] and a copper plate [copper circuit plate (3)], the copper plate including a surface perpendicular to a direction from the ceramic substrate toward the copper plate [see figure 1]; and
a bonding process of bonding the ceramic substrate and the copper plate at a bonding temperature of not more than 800 °C [750°C; 0047].
Kaga does not teach:
after the bonding process, a number percentage of copper crystal grains having major diameters greater than 400 μm in three 5 mm×5 mm regions included in the surface being not less than 0% and not more than 5%,
wherein B/A ≤ 10 is satisfied, A (μm) is an average grain size of the copper plate before the bonding process, and B (μm) is an average grain size of the copper plate after the bonding process, and
wherein an average value of the major diameters of the copper crystal grains in the three regions is not less than 30 μm and not more than 300 μm;
Note that the applicant achieves the claimed number percentage by having an average copper crystal grain size of 10-200 µm prior to brazing and brazing in the claimed temperature range with Ag-Cu-Ti braze.
Yuasa teaches a ceramic-copper composite comprising copper layer (2), brazing material layer (3), and ceramic layer (1), wherein the average copper crystal grain size of the copper plate prior to brazing is 20-200 µm in order to control oozing of brazing material; 0076-0077.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Yuasa average copper crystal grain size concept into Kaga in order to control oozing.
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 the number percentage, the B/A ratio, the average value, etc. This reasoning applies to any claim below where a result is claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Kaga does not specifically teach:
wherein the bonding temperature is not more than 700 °C.
However, Kaga does teach the brazing temperature can be 600-900°C; 0058, 0060.
Kaga and the claims differ in that Kaga does not teach the exact same ranges as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time/before the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Kaga overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003); In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974), and MPEP 2144.05. This reasoning applies to any claim and limitation in this action where a range is being claimed.
Regarding claims 4, 7, 9-11, and 14-16, these claims are drawn to results and thus are addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
wherein 1.1 ≤ B/A ≤ 5 is satisfied;
wherein the number percentage is not more than 1%;
wherein an average value of the major diameters of the copper crystal grains in the three regions is not less than 50 μm and not more than 150 μm;
wherein a number percentage of the copper crystal grains having major diameters within an average range in the three regions is not less than 80%, and
the average range is not less than 0.5 times and not more than 2 times an average value of the major diameters of the copper crystal grains in the three regions; and
wherein an arithmetic average height Wa of a waviness curve of the ceramic substrate is not more than 2 μm, and a maximum cross-sectional height Wt of the waviness curve is not more than 10 μm.
Regarding claim 5, Kaga does not specifically teach:
wherein a largest endothermic peak of a DSC curve of the brazing material is at not more than 700 °C.
However, Kaga does teach the brazing temperature can be 600-900°C; 0058, 0060.
Thus, brazing at not more than 700°C would meet this claim.
Regarding claim 6, Kaga teaches:
A method for manufacturing a ceramic copper circuit board [circuit board (1); figure 1], comprising:
the method for manufacturing the bonded body according to claim 1; and
a process of providing a circuit structure in the bonded copper plate [metal circuit plate (3); 0004].
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Kaga teaches:
wherein the brazing material includes Ag, Cu, and Ti [Ag-Cu-Ti brazing material (5); 0047].
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Kaga teaches:
wherein the ceramic substrate is one of a silicon nitride substrate or an aluminum nitride substrate [silicon nitride or aluminum nitride; 0081-0082].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the parameters discussed in arguments i-iv, while these parameters may be “effective” in achieving the claimed results they are not critical nor are they all required. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that if all of the claimed process limitations are met then so too are any claimed results. Additionally, argument iii is not even present in the claims. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any concrete explanation why the prior art process would not achieve the claimed results.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the applicant improperly attacks Yuasa for not teaching the claimed brazing temperature, DSC peak, and brazing material because Yuasa was not relied upon to teach these.
The applicant argues,
“Regarding condition iv), Yuasa discusses an average grain size measured by an intercept method on a "second surface" (e.g., Yuasa [0076]-[0078]). However, Yuasa does not teach "major diameter" based pre-bond grain size range (10 to 200 µm) and does not teach preparing it by "processing rate" as in the present specification.”
While the methods may be different this does not inherently mean they will achieve different results or in the least not overlap. Additionally, the method in which the grain size is achieved does not matter as it is not claimed.
The applicant argues,
“Additionally, Examples vs Comparative Examples in the present specification show that these conditions matter. In Applicant's tests, the melting point of the brazing material is measured by DSC (present specification [0074]). Table 3 shows the measurement results of the melting point. The melting points of brazing materials 1 to 3 are not more than 700°C, but that of brazing material 4 is more than 700°C. In Comparative Examples 1 to 3, brazing material 4 is used (Table 4), and a bonded body is not obtained even when the bonding temperature is lowered (Spec. [0083]). This means that, when at least the brazing material melting point and DSC peak do not meet the favorable conditions, the bonded body (and therefore the claimed post-bond microstructure) is not obtained.”
Note that the melting point of the brazing material is not claimed. Also, comparative examples 1-3, which use brazing material 4, are either heated outside the claimed bonding temperature or well below the melting point of brazing material 4. Thus, no trend based on melting point can be established from this data.
In response to applicant's argument that the present invention defines conditions to suppress abnormal grain growth on the surface and to obtain the claimed microstructure, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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