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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 15 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 9 and 15 are directed toward mutually exclusive species. Claim 9 requires the actual temperature is reduce from a high first temperature level to a lower second temperature level, and Claim 15 requires continuously maintaining the actual temperature.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention (claim 9), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the excitation" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims do not actively establish an excitation of the bonding tool. It is noted the language in amended claim 1 came from the previous and now cancelled claim 6, however the previous claim 6 depended from claim 4 which introduced the bonding tool is excited.
Claims 2-4, 7 and 9-14 depend from a rejected base claim, incorporate the indefinite language through dependency and are rejected for the same reasons as the base claim.
Claim 7 requires the laser generator is deactivated before the excitation of the bonding tool is terminated, however claim 1 already requires the laser generator continues to operate after the excitation of the bonding tool has ended. The language of claims 1 and 7 when combined are confusing an unclear. It’s unclear if claim 1 requires continuous operation of the laser generator until after excitation of the bonding tool is ended, which would conflict the requirement of claim 7 that the laser generator is deactivated before excitation of the bonding tool is ended. Clarification is required, but for the purpose of examination it will be assumed the laser generator is temporarily deactivated before excitation of the bonding tool is ended, and reactivated so that the laser generator operates after the excitation of the bonding tool is ended.
Claim 9 recites at least temporarily deactivating the laser generator during production of the connection, however claim 1 already requires the laser generator continues to operate after the excitation of the bonding tool has ended. The language of claims 1 and 9 when combined are confusing an unclear. It’s unclear if claim 1 requires continuous operation of the laser generator until after excitation of the bonding tool is ended (which is interpreted as the production of the connection is ended when the excitation of the bonding tool is ended), which would conflict the requirement of claim 9 that the laser generator is temporarily deactivated during production ( which would be before excitation of the bonding tool is ended). Clarification is required, but for the purpose of examination it will be assumed the laser generator is temporarily deactivated before excitation of the bonding tool is ended and the production of the connection is completed, and reactivated so that the laser generator operates after the excitation of the bonding tool is ended.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalco et al. [EP0367705, of record, previously cited, “Chalco”] in view of Takahashi [US2005/0176178, of record, previously cited].
Chalco discloses a method for producing an electrically conductive connection between a contact surface of a functional component (substrate 34) and a connection component (wire 32), the method comprising: positioning the connection component (32) against the contact surface of the functional component (34) using a bonding tool (12) (column 4, lines 9-13; column 5, lines 49-56; Figure 1); causing the bonding tool (12) and the connection component in contact with the same to vibrate ultrasonically (column 5); providing a laser beam using a laser generator (column 5); directing the laser beam onto the bonding tool or onto a tip of the bonding tool (column 5); heating the tip of the bonding tool with the laser beam (column 5); contactlessly measuring an actual temperature of the tip of the bonding tool (column 6, line 28-column 7, line 19); and operating the laser generator intermittently and/or with an adjustable laser output such that a predefined target temperature is adjusted at the tip of the bonding tool (column 6, line 28-column 7, line 19).
Chalco discloses the bonding tip is positioned over the connection component and the contact surface, but does not explicitly disclose pressing with a normal force using bonding tool. Takahashi discloses a method of bonding using heat and ultrasonic vibration. Takahashi discloses bonding with thermocompression, which one of ordinary skill would appreciate requires heat and a pressing force (paragraph 0016).
Chalco discloses a preferred operation where the laser and the ultrasonic generator are asynchronously operated (column 5, lines 49-56), but does not disclose the laser generator is operated before the bonding tool is subjected to the normal force and wherein the laser generator continues to operate after excitation of the bonding tool has ended. Takahashi discloses the laser generator is activated to provide the laser beam before the bonding tool is subjected to the normal force and the connection component is pressed against the contact surface of the functional component (paragraph, 0080, 0109-110). In Figure 1, the laser beam (27) is directed onto the capillary (25) before the capillary (25) is pressed against the functional component (Figure 1 step 3; paragraph 0080). In Figure 1, the laser beam (27) operation is continued by exposing the laser beam (27) to the capillary (25) after the excitation of the bonding tool (25) is ended at step 4 (Figure 1 step 5; paragraph 0080).
Chalco discloses the tip of the bonding tool is heated while the bonding tool is positioned over the contact surface of the functional component (column 5, lines 49-56), and Takahashi shows in Figure 1 the tip of the bonding tool (25) is heated (by the laser beam 27) while the bonding tool (25) is positioned above the contact surface of the functional component (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Chalco by pressing using the bonding tip as taught by Takahashi in order to improve quality of the bond formed by ensuring good contact between the surfaces being bonded, and by starting the laser generator before a normal force is applied to the bonding tool while the bonding tool is located above the components to be bonded and continuing operation of the laser generator after the excitation of the bonding tool is stopped as taught by Takahashi in order to ensure the bonding tool is heated before each bonding step.
With respect to claim 2, Chalco discloses the laser output from the laser generator is such that the actual temperature of the tip of the bonding tool is above an ambient or initial temperature, but does not disclose forming first and second electrical connections. Takahashi discloses the bonding process form a first and second electrical connection (paragraph 0108-0110; Figure 21). Takahashi does not disclose cooling of the bonding tip between forming the first and second bond, additionally it’s within the ability to one of ordinary skill to appreciate conserving energy by using the heat from the first bonding in the second bonding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Chalco by heating the bonding tip for a first and second bonding process as taught by Takahashi wherein the temperature of the bonding tool remains over an ambient temperature in order to improve the efficiency of the process and to conserve energy used in the process.
With respect to claim 3, Chalco discloses the actual temperature is controlled with the target temperature as the reference variable (column 7, lines 14-19).
With respect to claim 4, Chalco discloses the laser generator is activated to provide the laser beam before the bonding tool is excited to vibrate ultrasonically (column 5, lines 36-48).
With respect to claim 7, Chalco discloses the laser generator is deactivated before the excitation of the bonding tool to vibrate ultrasonically is terminated (column 5, lines 36-48). Takahashi also shows in Figure 1 the laser beam (27) is not being directed onto the capillary (25) at step 4 (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 9, Chalco discloses the actual temperature of the tip of the bonding tool is reduced from a high first temperature level to a lower second temperature level during the production of the connection by a pulsed operation of the laser generator (column 5).
With respect to claim 10, Chalco discloses the actual temperature of the tip of the bonding tool is determined continuously and/or repeatedly at fixed or variable time intervals (column 7, lines 11-19).
With respect to claim 11, Chalco does not disclose the temperature changes over time. Takahashi discloses the target temperature changes over time (paragraph 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Chalco by changing the target temperature over time as taught by Takahashi in order to prevent degradation of the wire being bonded.
With respect to claim 12, Chalco discloses the laser beam is guided out of the laser generator via an optical waveguide and is guided to the tip of the bonding tool (Figures 1-2; column 5, lines 24-35).
With respect to claim 13, Chalco discloses a free optical waveguide end, facing the tip of the bonding tool, is positioned and/or held at a distance from the bonding tool (Figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 14, Chalco discloses a laser beam within the bonding tool, and fails to disclose the laser beam striking the bonding tool from outside the bonding tool on a lateral surface of the bonding tool. Takahashi discloses an arrangement wherein a laser beam (27) strikes the outside of the bonding tool on a lateral surface of the bonding tool (paragraph 0132, Figure 23a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Chalco by applying a laser from outside of the bonding tool and to a lateral surface of the bonding tool as taught by Takahashi in order to improve the efficiency of the heating by directly heating the outer surface rather than conducting heat though from the inside of the bonding tip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments directed toward claim 1 and “the step of continuously maintaining the actual temperature over at least two electrically conductive connections” is not commensurate with the scope of the claim as this step is not recited in claim 1. Applicant’s argument that Takahashi fails to teach or suggest maintaining the predefined target temperature over a plurality of electrically conductive connections, as required by claim 1, is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Applicant asserts Takahashi fails to teach or suggest that the laser generator is activated to provide the laser beam before the bonding tool is subjected to the normal force. Figures 1 and 12 of Takahashi shows the laser beam (27) is directed onto the tool (25) before a force is applied to press the tool onto the components being bonded.
Applicant asserts Chalco is silent where the tip is positioned over the contact surface as required by claim 1. Takahashi shows in Figure 1 and 12 the tip (25) is positioned above the components to be bonded when the laser beam (27) is directed onto the tip (25).
Applicant asserts Chalco does not explicitly teach or suggest that the laser generator continues to operate after the excitation of the bonding tool to ultrasonic vibrations has ended. Chalco discloses “ultrasonic energy pulse may be applied before, after or during the laser pulse,” (column 5, lines 42-44). When the ultrasonic pulse is applied before the laser pulse, the ultrasonic vibration will end and the laser pulse will continue after the ultrasonic pulse is ended. Additionally, Takahashi shows in Figure 1, the ultrasonic vibration of tool (25) is ended after step 4, and the laser beam generator continues to operate in step 5 to directed the laser beam (27) onto to the tool (25).
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 DANIEL MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2685. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/DANIEL MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
DPM
October 29, 2025