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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 13-24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calpito et al, US Patent 7,188,759 (newly submitted) in view of Nagano, WIPO Publication 2018/147164 (as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claim 1, Calpito teaches a method of determining a shear strength of a bonded free air ball on a wire bonding machine, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a free air ball 38 at a working end of a wire bonding tool 30;
(b) bonding the free air ball to a bonding location of a workpiece 40 (figure 3A);
(c) moving the wire bonding tool after the free air ball has been bonded to the bonding location in step (b), while in contact with the bonded free air ball, in a direction 42/48/50 along the bonding location (figures 3A-3C).
Calpito fails to teach
(d) monitoring wire bonding process signals during step (c); and
(e) determining the shear strength of the bonded free air ball using the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d).
However, Nagano teaches monitoring the wire bonding process in order to form a good quality bond between the bonded free air ball and the workpiece. Combining the monitoring process of Nagano with that of Calpito would then meet the limitations of
(d) monitoring wire bonding process signals during step (c) (using the ultrasonic vibrations supplied by ultrasonic horn 14 of Nagano with the bonding process as disclosed by Calpito) ; and
(e) determining a shear strength using the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d) (As cited in the translated Description of Embodiments as “According to the phonon conduction effect, in the wire bonding apparatus 100 to which ultrasonic vibration is applied, the single amplitude y .sub.req (μm) of the ultrasonic vibration at the tip of the capillary 15 necessary for obtaining the required shear strength at the bonding interface is It is represented by the following formula (4)”. See page 4 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nagano with that of Calpito because it is generally-known in the art that a monitoring process is performed during a wire bonding process in order to form a good quality bond between the bonded free air ball and the workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, Nagano teaches the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d) include at least one of (i) an electrical characteristic of an ultrasonic transducer carrying the wire bonding tool, (ii) a bonding force signal provided by a force sensor of a bond head assembly of the wire bonding machine, (iii) a force feedback signal related to a bonding force applied, and (d) a z-axis position signal (As cited in the translated Description of Embodiments as “According to the phonon conduction effect, in the wire bonding apparatus 100 to which ultrasonic vibration is applied, the single amplitude y .sub.req (μm) of the ultrasonic vibration at the tip of the capillary 15 necessary for obtaining the required shear strength at the bonding interface is It is represented by the following formula (4)”).
Regarding claim 3, Nagano teaches the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d) include an electrical characteristic of an ultrasonic transducer carrying the wire bonding tool (As cited in the translated Description of Embodiments as “According to the phonon conduction effect, in the wire bonding apparatus 100 to which ultrasonic vibration is applied, the single amplitude y .sub.req (μm) of the ultrasonic vibration at the tip of the capillary 15 necessary for obtaining the required shear strength at the bonding interface is It is represented by the following formula (4)”).
Regarding claim 4, Nagano teaches the electrical characteristic is related to an impedance of the ultrasonic transducer (which is the measurement of the resonance frequency of the ultrasonic horn).
Regarding claim 6, Nagano teaches the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d) include a force feedback signal related to a bonding force applied (As cited in the translated Description of Embodiments as “According to the phonon conduction effect, in the wire bonding apparatus 100 to which ultrasonic vibration is applied, the single amplitude y .sub.req (μm) of the ultrasonic vibration at the tip of the capillary 15 necessary for obtaining the required shear strength at the bonding interface is It is represented by the following formula (4)” by pressing the bond tool to the electrode 19a).
Regarding claim 7, Nagano teaches the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d) include a z-axis position signal (As cited in the translated Description of Embodiments as “According to the phonon conduction effect, in the wire bonding apparatus 100 to which ultrasonic vibration is applied, the single amplitude y .sub.req (μm) of the ultrasonic vibration at the tip of the capillary 15 necessary for obtaining the required shear strength at the bonding interface is It is represented by the following formula (4)” by pressing the bond tool to the electrode 19a, which is z-axis movement).
Regarding claim 13, Calpito in view of Nagano teach each of steps (a) - (e) are repeated for a plurality of bonded free air balls to determine the shear strength (Note: this is taught by performing the step of figure 2b to place a free ball onto electrode 20a in figure 2C of Nagano using the wirebonding process of Calpito).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Calpito, and Nagano fail to teach a single shear strength value is determined by averaging the shear strength determined for each of the plurality of bonded free air balls and a single shear strength value is determined utilizing the shear strength determined for each of the plurality of bonded free air balls.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, Capito in view of Nagao teaches each of steps (a) - (e) are performed at a predetermined interval (as steps 2a-2c of Nagano using the wirebonding process of Calpito).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Calpito and Nagano fail to teach each of steps (a) - (e) are performed after the wire bonding tool on the wire bonding machine is changed and each of steps (a) - (e) are performed after a bonding wire supply on the wire bonding machine is changed.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 19-21, Nagano teaches the step of (f) extending a length of wire 21 from the bonding location 19a to another bonding location 20a to form a wire loop between the bonding location and the another bonding location wherein step (f) occurs after step (d), and step (f) includes bonding the length of wire to the second bonding location to complete the wire loop (figure 2C).
Regarding claims 22-24, Calpito teaches step (f) also includes separating the wire loop from a wire supply of the wire bonding machine, and the step of (g) providing a wire tail 76 at the working end of the wire bonding tool after the step of separating, wherein another free air ball is formed using the wire tail, and steps (b) - (e) are repeated using the another free air ball (figures 5A-C and 6. Note: it is generally-known in the art that semiconductor devices contain more than one wirebonding process, thereby and steps (b) - (e) are repeated using the another free air ball).
Regarding claim 27, Calpito teaches a method of determining a shear strength of a bonded free air ball on a wire bonding machine, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a free air 38 ball at a working end of a wire bonding tool 30;
(b) bonding the free air ball to a bonding location of a workpiece 40;
(c) moving the wire bonding tool along a ball shear motion, while in contact with the bonded free air ball, in a direction 42/48/50 along the bonding location (figures 3A-3C).
Calpito fails to teach (d) monitoring wire bonding process signals during step (c); and (e) determining the shear strength of the bonded free air ball using the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d).
However, Nagano teaches monitoring the wire bonding process in order to form a good quality bond between the bonded free air ball and the workpiece. Combining the monitoring process of Nagano with that of Calpito would then meet the limitations of
(d) monitoring wire bonding process signals during step (c) (using the ultrasonic vibrations supplied by ultrasonic horn 14 of Nagano with the bonding process as disclosed by Calpito); and
(e) determining the shear strength of the bonded free air ball using the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d) (As cited in the translated Description of Embodiments as “According to the phonon conduction effect, in the wire bonding apparatus 100 to which ultrasonic vibration is applied, the single amplitude y .sub.req (μm) of the ultrasonic vibration at the tip of the capillary 15 necessary for obtaining the required shear strength at the bonding interface is It is represented by the following formula (4)”. See page 4 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nagano with that of Calpito because it is generally-known in the art that a monitoring process is performed during a wire bonding process in order to form a good quality bond between the bonded free air ball and the workpiece.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calpito and Nagano as applied to claims above, and further in view of Fukuda, JP 2008-78180 (as cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 5, Calpito and Nagano fail to teach the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d) include a bonding force signal provided by a force sensor of a bond head assembly of the wire bonding machine.
However, Fukuda teaches a wire bonding apparatus that includes a tool component 12 with the bonding assembly 13 (figure 1), which is generally-known in the art to measure for shear strength (or shear force). This tool measures the shear force by pressing on the ball, which gives a bonding force signal that is received a force sensor 16, thereby meeting the limitations of ‘the wire bonding process signals monitored in step (d) include a bonding force signal provided by a force sensor of a bond head assembly of the wire bonding machine”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fukuda with that of Calpito and Nagano because using bonding force measuring is a generally-known and conventionally-used means to obtain the shear strength of bonding air balls in a semiconductor device.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calpito and Nagano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekine et al, US Patent 9,457,421 (both as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Calpito and Nagano fail to teach a step (d) also includes monitoring wire bonding process signals during a time immediately after step (c) and step (d) also includes monitoring at least one of the wire bonding process signals at a time just prior to step (c), at least one of the wire bonding signals during step (c), and at least one of the wire bonding signals at a time immediately after step (c)
However, Sekine teaches a step (d) also includes monitoring wire bonding process signals during a time immediately after step (c) and step (d) also includes monitoring at least one of the wire bonding process signals at a time just prior to step (c), at least one of the wire bonding signals during step (c), and at least one of the wire bonding signals at a time immediately after step (c) (since Sekine teaches the continuous through wire bonding. See column 4,lines 5-21). Sekine teaches a monitoring unit that configured to monitor the connection state of the wired and determine whether or not the connecting state changes, the monitoring and the determination being made based on a continuous response to a continuous application of a predetermined electrical signal between the wire held by a capillary and a bonding stage for supporting the first bonding target and the second bonding target over an entire period from a period before the first bonding operation (which is monitoring wire bonding process signals at a time just prior to step (c)) to a period after the second bonding (see column 4,lines 5-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sekine with that of Calpito and Nagano because there may also be a case in which the wire is disconnected in the middle of the loop formation even if the first bonding has been normally performed. These phenomena are collectively referred to as nonsticking and detection of such nonsticking is required to be performed at an early stage to ultimately improve the quality of the electrical device formed.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Calpito and Nagano fail to teach step (d) also includes monitoring wire bonding process signals at a time just prior to step (c) and step (d) also includes monitoring wire bonding process signals during at least one of (i) a time just prior to step (c) and (ii) a time immediately after step (c).
However, Sekine teaches step (d) also includes monitoring wire bonding process signals at a time just prior to step (c) and step (d) also includes monitoring wire bonding process signals during at least one of (i) a time just prior to step (c) and (ii) a time immediately after step (c) (since Sekine teaches the continuous through wire bonding. See column 4,lines 5-21). Sekine teaches a monitoring unit that configured to monitor the connection state of the wired and determine whether or not the connecting state changes, the monitoring and the determination being made based on a continuous response to a continuous application of a predetermined electrical signal between the wire held by a capillary and a bonding stage for supporting the first bonding target and the second bonding target over an entire period from a period before the first bonding operation (which is monitoring wire bonding process signals at a time just prior to step (c)) to a period after the second bonding (see column 4,lines 5-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sekine with that of Calpito and Nagano because there may also be a case in which the wire is disconnected in the middle of the loop formation even if the first bonding has been normally performed. These phenomena are collectively referred to as nonsticking and detection of such nonsticking is required to be performed at an early stage to ultimately improve the quality of the electrical device formed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights