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 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.
Claims 10-11, 13, and 15-16 are 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 dependent claims do not cure the deficiency.
Claims 10-11 recite the limitation "the ceramic part" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the claims are referring to the first or second ceramic part. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “the first ceramic part”.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (US 20190081452) in view of Yamamoto (JP 2006049847). A machine translation of Yamamoto is attached as an English equivalent and is used in the citations below.
Regarding Claim 1, Miura teaches a composite ceramic member comprising a ceramic part (11, fluorescent part, [0044]), and a connection part connected to the ceramic part (12, light reflecting part, [0044]); and a precious metal layer on a surface region of the connection part and delineated by the boundary between the ceramic part and the connection part (50, connecting member, [0066]).
Miura is silent as to the method of applying the precious metal layer; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine a suitable coating method. Yamamoto teaches a method of achieving a metal coating disposed on one portion of a substrate and not on a second portion of a substrate. Yamamoto teaches treating the surface to form regions with different adhesion, disposing a metal layer on the entire surface of the substrate, and removing a portion of the metal layer that is on the surface with less adhesion (pg. 5 4th para.; pg. 9 para. 1 and 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Miura to include a coating method, as taught in Yamamoto, because it is a known method of achieving a pattern coated surface in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of Miura with a method as in Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 2, Miura teaches the porosity of the first ceramic part is different from a porosity of the second ceramic part ([0067]).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Since Miura teaches the part is porous, the coating inherently enters depressions located at the surface to some degree. Miura teaches the precious metal layer remains on the connection part (Figure 4).
Regarding Claims 5-8, Miura teaches Ag or Au ([0066]).
Claim(s) 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (US 20190081452) in view of Yamamoto (JP 2006049847) as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Matsumae (Matsumae, Surface activated bonding of Ti/Au and Ti/Pt/Au films after vacuum annealing for MEMS packaging, Microelectronic Engineering, Volume 197, 5 Oct 2018, pg. 76-82).
Regarding Claims 9-16, The combined references suggest removing a portion of the bonding material disposed on the surface of the first ceramic part and that the bonding material remains disposed on the connection part. Miura does not teach multi-layered bonding structures wherein the precious metal is overcoated with a layer of metal different than the precious metal layer; however, such bonding structures are known in the art (Matsumae abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the bonding structure of the combined references to include multiple metal layers, as suggested by Matsumae, because they are known bonding structures and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the bonding of the combined references with a layered structure as in Matsumae.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights