DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 11/27/24.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 3 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.
The term “preferably” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the claim reads as removed by etching or laser ablation, preferably by etching wherein it is unclear if the claim is limited to etching or not.
For compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret that claim as reading as removed by etching or laser ablation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wacker et al. US PGPub 2019/0009362 hereinafter WACKER in view of Terasaki US PGPub 2020/0365475 hereinafter TERASAKI.
As for claim 1, WACKER teaches “One aspect relates to a method of processing metallized ceramic substrates and to a metal-ceramic substrate obtained by this method” (abstract), and “Furthermore, there is a need for a method by which metal-ceramic substrates can be laser-etched from the backside” (paragraph 12, lines 1-3) i.e. a method for structuring a metal-ceramic composite.
WACKER teaches “In particular, the present invention has the task to provide a method for processing ceramics or metal-ceramic substrates, which can be carried out with high cost-efficiency and high process capacity per laser system. The process should be particularly suitable for ceramics of the type… AIN and Si3N4” (paragraph 14, lines 1-6), and “The method according to the invention should furthermore preferably enable ablation and cutting through of copper of the metal-ceramic substrate” (paragraph 16, lines 1-3) i.e. providing a metal-ceramic composite containing a nitride ceramic substrate comprising a front side and a rear side, a metal coating on the front side of the nitride ceramic substrate.
WACKER teaches “it is possible to process the metal coating and the ceramic substrate with the same laser. As a result, a production of metal-ceramic substrates with structured metal coating can be realized cost-effectively. In detail it is possible… III) to cut through the metal coating and ceramic substrate or to cut only the metal coating or the ceramic substrate, if there is no metal coating on top of the ceramic substrate (for example, because it has already been etched away or not even applied)” (paragraph 83-86), and “Furthermore, it is further preferred if the p-sec laser has a pulse duration, i.e. a duration of the laser pulse of preferably 0.1 to 100 ps, more preferably 0.5 to 50 ps, still more preferably 1 to 30 ps” (paragraph 34, lines 1-4) i.e. removing the metal coating so that at least one recess is created in the metal coating… using a pulsed laser beam of an ultrashort pulse laser so that an exposed surface of the ceramic substrate is present in the recess.
WACKER is silent on a reaction layer which is present between the metal coating and the ceramic substrate and contains one or more elements ERs selected from Ti, Hf, Zr, Nb, V, Ta, and Ce… and wherein the laser removal results in an exposed reaction layer is present in the recess… removing the exposed reaction layer.
Examiner notes that WACKER is silent on how the metal-composite is made.
TERASAKI teaches “A bonded body of copper and ceramic” (abstract, line 1).
TERASAKI further teaches “Therefore, the bonded body of copper and ceramic in which the interfacial reaction sufficiently proceeds at the bonding interface between the copper member and the ceramic member and the copper member and the ceramic member are reliably bonded to each other can be obtained” (paragraph 18, lines 1-5).
TERASAKI further teaches “In a case where Ti, Zr, and Hf are contained as the active metals, the active metals in the Mg solid solution layer are present as the intermetallic compound phase of Cu
and the active metals. Therefore, since the intermetallic compound phase of Cu and the active metals is present in the Mg solid solution layer, Mg disposed between the ceramic member and the copper member is sufficiently diffused on the copper member side and Cu and the active metal are sufficiently reacted to each other. Therefore, the bonded body of copper and ceramic in which the copper member
and the ceramic member are reliably bonded to each other can be obtained.” (paragraph 20), i.e. reaction layer which is present between the metal coating and the ceramic substrate and contains one or more elements ERs selected from Ti, Hf, Zr, Nb, V, Ta, and Ce.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a reaction layer which is present between the metal coating and the ceramic substrate and contains one or more elements ERs selected from Ti, Hf, Zr, Nb, V, Ta, and Ce in the metal-composite of WACKER such that when the laser is applied it results in exposed reaction layer is present in the recess… removing the exposed reaction layer because TERASAKI teaches that such a reaction layer improves bonding between ceramic surfaces and metal coatings.
WACKER is silent on the fluence of the laser.
However, Wacker does teach “The formation of too large amounts of melting phases of the ceramic material can be avoided if the laser is operated under certain process conditions. These include in particular (a) the pulse duration of the laser; (b) the penetration depth of the laser into the
metal-ceramic substrate; and ( c) the power of the laser” (paragraph 27-30), and “The method according to the invention is then characterized in that the processing is carried out using a laser and when generating the laser scribing line as a predetermined breaking line or when cutting through, a pulse duration of the laser is used which is chosen such that essentially no melting phases of the ceramic material are formed” (paragraph 21), i.e. wherein the amount of laser energy provided to one particular surface effects the final result.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the duration, power, and speed of the laser and thereby the fluence such that the desired no melting phase is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 2, WACKER teaches “In particular, the present invention has the task to provide a method for processing ceramics or metal-ceramic substrates, which can be carried out with high cost-efficiency and high process capacity per laser system. The process should be particularly suitable for ceramics of the type… AIN and Si3N4” (paragraph 14, lines 1-6), and “The method according to the invention should furthermore preferably enable ablation and cutting through of copper of the metal-ceramic substrate” (paragraph 16, lines 1-3), i.e. wherein the nitride ceramic contains a silicon nitride or an aluminum nitride and the metal coating is a copper coating.
As for claim 3, WACKEWR teaches “it is possible to process the metal coating and the ceramic substrate with the same laser. As a result, a production of metal-ceramic substrates with structured metal coating can be realized cost-effectively. In detail it is possible… III) to cut through the metal coating and ceramic substrate or to cut only the metal coating or the ceramic substrate, if there is no metal coating on top of the ceramic substrate (for example, because it has already been etched away or not even applied)” (paragraph 83-86), i.e. wherein the metal coating is removed by… laser ablation.
As for claim 4, WACKER is silent on the fluence of the laser.
However, Wacker does teach “The formation of too large amounts of melting phases of the ceramic material can be avoided if the laser is operated under certain process conditions. These include in particular (a) the pulse duration of the laser; (b) the penetration depth of the laser into the
metal-ceramic substrate; and ( c) the power of the laser” (paragraph 27-30), and “The method according to the invention is then characterized in that the processing is carried out using a laser and when generating the laser scribing line as a predetermined breaking line or when cutting through, a pulse duration of the laser is used which is chosen such that essentially no melting phases of the ceramic material are formed” (paragraph 21), i.e. wherein the amount of laser energy provided to one particular surface effects the final result.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the duration, power, and speed of the laser and thereby the fluence such that the desired no melting phase is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 5, WACKER teaches “it is further preferred if the p-sec laser has a pulse duration, i.e. a duration of the laser pulse of preferably 0.1 to 100 ps, more preferably 0.5 to 50 ps, still more preferably 1 to 30 ps” (paragraph 34, lines 1-4), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the pulsed laser beam comprises pulses with a pulse duration of 1 femtosecond to 100 picoseconds. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 6, WACKER teaches “The pulse energy, i.e. the energy content of a single laser pulse is preferably 10 to 500 μJ, more preferably 50 to 400 pJ, even more preferably 100 to 350 μJ” (paragraph 35), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the pulsed laser beam comprises pulses which each have a pulse energy of at least 15 μJ. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 7, WACKER teaches “When an IR laser is used in the present invention, the frequency of the IR laser is preferably 350 to 650 kHz, more preferably 375 to 625 kHz, still more preferably 400 to 600 kHz” (paragraph 61), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the pulsed laser beam has a pulse frequency fL of 100 kHz to 50 MHz. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 8, WACKER teaches “The spot diameter of the laser is preferably 20 to 80 μm, more preferably 30 to 70 μm, still more preferably 40 to 60 μm” (paragraph 55), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the pulsed laser beam hitting the exposed adhesion-promoting layer has a diameter DL of 3 μm to 200 μm.
As for claim 9, WACKER is silent on the particular formula claimed.
However, Examiner notes that WACKER teaches “The processing speed of the laser is preferably 0.05 to 20.0 m/sec, more preferably 0.1 to 19.0 m/sec, more preferably 0.15 to 18.0 m/sec, further preferably 0.20 to 17 .0 m/sec, more preferably 0.25 to 16.0 m/sec” (paragraph 39), “The spot diameter of the laser is preferably 20 to 80 μm, more preferably 30 to 70 μm, still more preferably 40 to 60 μm” (paragraph 55) and “When an IR laser is used in the present invention, the frequency of the IR laser is preferably 350 to 650 kHz, more preferably 375 to 625 kHz, still more preferably 400 to 600 kHz” (paragraph 61).
It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the individual values of WACKER to a formula as described in claim 9, which overlaps with the instant claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717