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 .
Amendment to the Title of the Specification
In response to objection that title of the invention is not descriptive, applicant has amended the title of the invention and the same is being entered. The objection to the title of the specification is hereby withdrawn.
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.
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 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN102994817A), hereinafter Huang. A copy of full English machine translation of Huang is being provided with this office action and all references to paragraph numbers of Huang are with respect to the full English machine translation.
Regarding claim 1 Huang teaches an Al wiring material which is an alloy of Al (para 35 describes use for making “aluminum alloy wire”; also see para 13) with a content of aluminum in the balance is 98% by mass or more (see para 24 that discloses an aluminum content of greater than or equal to “98.1 wt%”), with the alloy comprising rare earth metals that are 0.03 to 0.05 wt% (para 22, also see para 13), wherein the rare earth metals may be gadolinium Gd (para 31), erbium Er (para 33) and ytterbium Yb (para 33).
Thus, the claimed set of rare earth metals “i.e. “one or more selected from the group consisting of Er, Yb and Gd” is a subset of (or overlaps with) rare earth metals discloses by Huang (as explained above), and the disclosed concentration by Huang of rare earth metals of 0.03 to 0.05 wt%, as explained, lies within the claimed range of “a total content thereof is more than or equal to 0.001% and less than or equal to 0.6% by mass”. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claims 6-8, as explained for claim 1 above, Huang teaches the rare earth metals may be gadolinium Gd (para 31), erbium Er (para 33) and ytterbium Yb (para 33), from which it follows that Huang discloses the Al wiring material according to claim 1, wherein the Al wiring material contains:
(a). at least Er or Yb (as recited in claim 6); OR
(b). at least Yb or Gd (as recited in claim 7); OR
(.c). two or more selected from the group consisting of Er, Yb and Gd (as recited in claim 8).
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches an Al wiring material which is an alloy of Al (para 35 describes use for making “aluminum alloy wire”; also see para 13) with a content of aluminum in the balance is 98% by mass or more (see para 24 that discloses an aluminum content of greater than or equal to “98.1 wt%”), with the alloy comprising rare earth metals that are 0.03 to 0.05 wt% (para 22, also see para 13), wherein the rare earth metals may be gadolinium Gd (para 31), erbium Er (para 33) and ytterbium Yb (para 33), and further containing Scandium; i.e. Sc (para 33) so that the alloy comprising rare earth metals that are 0.03 to 0.05 wt% (para 22, also see para 13)
Thus, the claimed set of rare earth metals “i.e. “one or more selected from the group consisting of Er, Yb and Gd” is a subset of (or overlaps with) rare earth metals discloses by Huang (as explained above), and the disclosed concentration by Huang of rare earth metals of 0.03 to 0.05 wt%, as explained, lies within the claimed range of “a total content thereof is more than or equal to 0.001% and less than or equal to 0.6% by mass” as well as “a total content thereof is more than or equal to 0.005% and less than or equal to 0.6% by mass”. Again, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches an Al wiring material which is an alloy of Al (para 35 describes use for making “aluminum alloy wire”; also see para 13) containing rare earth metals that are 0.03 to 0.05 wt% (para 22, also see para 13), wherein the rare earth metals may be gadolinium Gd (para 31), erbium Er (para 33) and ytterbium Yb (para 33), so that the alloy comprising rare earth metals that are 0.03 to 0.05 wt% (para 22, also see para 13), further containing at least Si that is 0.05 – 0.1% by wt (para 17) and comprising Al, wherein a content of aluminum in the balance is 98% by mass or more (see para 24 that discloses an aluminum content of greater than or equal to “98.1 wt%”).
Thus, the claimed set of rare earth metals “i.e. “one or more selected from the group consisting of Er, Yb and Gd” is a subset of (or overlaps with) rare earth metals discloses by Huang (as explained above), and the disclosed concentration by Huang of rare earth metals of 0.03 to 0.05 wt%, as explained, lies within the claimed range of “a total content thereof is more than or equal to 0.001% and less than or equal to 0.6% by mass”. Similarly, the claimed “containing one or more selected from the group consisting of Si, Fe, Ni, Ce, Y and Zn so that a total content thereof is more than or equal to 0.001% and less than or equal to 1% by mass” also reads on the disclosed Si content that is 0.05 – 0.1% by wt (as explained above). Again, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches (as explained for claim 1) that the Al wiring material comprises rare earth metals that are 0.03 to 0.05 wt% (para 22, also see para 13), wherein the rare earth metals may be gadolinium Gd (para 31), erbium Er (para 33) and ytterbium Yb (para 33), which overlaps with the ranges recited in claim 9; i.e “wherein the total content of Er, Yb and Gd is more than or equal to 0.02% and less than or equal to 0.6% by mass as to satisfy 0.02 ≤ xl ≤ 0.6”.
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches (as explained for claim 3) that the Al wiring material contains at least Si that is 0.05 – 0.1% by wt (para 17), which overlaps with the ranges recited in claim 10; i.e. “the total content of Si, Fe, Ni, Ce, Y and Zn is more than or equal to 0.001% and less than or equal to 0.8% by mass as to satisfy 0.001 ≤ x3 ≤ 0.8”.
Claims 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Do (US 20050230800) of prior record, hereinafter Do.
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 11, Huang teaches the Al wiring material according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the Al wiring material is “a bonding wire” (as recited in claim 4); or that the it is part of a “semiconductor device” (as recited in claim 5); or that it is “a bonding wire or a bonding ribbon” (as recited in claim 11). However, Huang teaches the Al wiring material in the context of conductors and for the purpose of improving properties such as mechanical strength (para 9). Do (US 20050230800) teaches that Al wire conductors are known to be used as a bonding wire (para 6) and teaches it’s suitability for welding or bonding in the context of wire bonding process such as wire bonding for a semiconductor device (para 1 and 6), where a wire conductor is held in contact with a wire bonding pad on the die to weld or bond the wire to the bonding pad on the die (para 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Huang to include applying the Al material conductor for wire bonding of a bonding wire that is part of a semiconductor device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang for at least the purpose of improved mechanical strength of the bonded wire conductor (see para 9 of Huang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC 112, rejections of claims 1-5 (see pages 6-8 of applicant’s response of 9/4/2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph rejections of claims 1-5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1-5 (see pages 8-9 of applicant’s response of 9/4/2025) 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 AJAY ARORA whose telephone number is (571)272-8347. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Drew Richards can be reached at 5712721736. 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.
/AJAY ARORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892