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 .
Double Patenting Rejections Withdrawn
In view of applicant’s response of 12/24/2025 (see section titled “Double Patenting Rejection” and corresponding terminal disclaimer of the same date (which was approved the same day; i.e. 12/24/2025), the nonstatutory double patenting rejections outlined in the previous office action of are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto (JPH06132371 A) of prior record, hereinafter Goto. A full English machine translation of Goto reference was included with this office action of 9/24/2025 and all references to paragraph numbers of Goto are with respect of the above full English machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Goto teaches a method of manufacturing a module, the method comprising:
providing a packaging substrate (9, described as “lead frame 9” in para 12; best seen in Figure 1) including a die (1, described as “semiconductor chip 1” in para 12; best seen in Figure 1) mounted on the packaging substrate and a plurality of defective wires (4, described as “wire 4” that is “not good (defective)” in para 16; best seen in Figure 2; and there may be multiple such defective wires as evidenced by “next time it is determined that the wire is not bonded” in para 18) coupled to the packaging substrate;
selecting in response to a trigger (i.e. upon detection of a defective wire by “the wire bonding inspection device” – see para 19), by an automated wire cutting apparatus (comprising 10 and 11, described as “arm 10” and “cutting needle 11” in para 16 – best seen in Figure 2) without user input (i.e. “without requiring the operator’s intervention as in the conventional case” – see para 19), a set of stored instructions associated with the packaging substrate from a plurality of sets of stored instructions (inherent as it is automated as described above, also see instruction storage devices, such as “computing device” described in conjunction with “an image processing device” in para 13; also see para 19), the set of stored instructions associated with the packaging substrate corresponding to a pattern of defective wires (i.e. pattern as detected by “an image processing device” - see para 13 and 19) coupled to the packaging substrate for detaching the plurality of defective wires;
executing by the automated wire cutting apparatus without user input (i.e. “without requiring the operator’s intervention as in the conventional case” – see para 19), the set of stored instructions (para 19) to:
position (such as by “the arm 10 is moved ….” – see para 16) a wire cutting instrument (10 and 11, described as “arm 10” and “cutting needle 11” in para 16 – best seen in Figure 2) of the automated wire cutting apparatus and a first defective wire of the plurality of defective wires adjacent to one another (para 17-18), and
sequentially (i.e. the action is repeated “next time it is determined that a wire is not bonded” – see para 18) detach the plurality of defective wires from the packaging substrate using the wire cutting instrument (para 19).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Goto teaches the method of claim 1 wherein executing in response to the trigger, by the automated wire cutting apparatus (10 and 11) without user input, the set of stored instructions to position the wire cutting instrument includes
moving (as recited in claim 2) the packaging substrate to position the first defective wire adjacent to the wire cutting instrument (para 21, especially last sentence); OR
moving (as recited in claim 3) the wire cutting instrument (para 17) to position the wire cutting instrument adjacent to the first defective wire (also see para 21).
Regarding claim 4, Goto teaches the method of claim 1 wherein executing in response to the trigger, by the automated wire cutting apparatus without user input, the set of stored instructions to sequentially detach the plurality of defective wires includes moving the wire cutting instrument (10 and 11) relative to the packaging substrate (para 17) while the packaging substrate is stationary (para 21, which explains any one of the wire cutting instrument and the packaging substrate can be moved, and the other is not moved).
Regarding claim 5, Goto teaches the method of claim 4 wherein moving the wire cutting instrument includes moving the wire cutting instrument along a linear path – see Figure 1 which shows that the wires (4) are arranged on the packaging substrate (9) along a linear path, and para 17, further describes the “cutting needle 11” is such that it “moves horizontally together the arm 10” -see Figure 2.
Regarding claim 6, Goto teaches the method of claim 1 wherein executing in response to the trigger, by the automated wire cutting apparatus without user input, the set of stored instructions to sequentially (para 18, especially last sentence) detach the plurality of defective wires from the packaging substrate includes sequentially contacting (para 17, especially last sentence) the wire cutting instrument (10 and 11) and each of the plurality of defective wires (4) to mechanically separate the plurality of defective wires (para 18).
Regarding claim 10, Goto teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of defective wires includes at least one of an extraneous wire, a wire having an erroneous diameter, a wire having a defective loop (see “loop shape” of the wire listed in para 5 that “determines whether bonding condition is good or bad”; also see para 9), and an erroneously positioned wire.
Claims 11-15, respectively, are substantially similar to claims 1-5, respectively, and hence the rejection is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 16, Goto teaches the apparatus of claim 11 wherein the wire cutting instrument includes a wire cutting shank portion (10 – see Figure 2) and a wire cutting tip portion (11, see Figure 2) extending from a distal end of the wire cutting shank portion (best seen in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, it is substantially similar to claim 10 and hence the rejection is substantially similar.
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.
Claims 7, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Young (US 20020048825) of prior record, hereinafter Young.
Regarding claim 7, Goto teaches the method of claim 6 wherein sequentially contacting the wire cutting instrument and each of the plurality of defective wires includes maintaining contact between the wire cutting instrument and each of the plurality of defective wires to apply a force (described as “a force acting to cut the bonded wire 4” in para 18) upon each defective wire to mechanically separate each defective wire from the packaging substrate (para 18). Goto does not specifically state that the force is a “shear force”. Young teaches a method of removing wires (26, see Figure 2), wherein the method applies a shear force (i.e. by applying a force to cause “rotating” and “twisting off” – see para 52) to mechanically separate a wire from a packaging substrate (para 52). 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 use a known force type (such as shear force). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Goto for at least the purpose of using repeated shear forces to cause breakage (or cutting) of the plurality of defective wires while still limiting the amount of vertical tension force to the wire which can result in damage bondpad metallization during wire removal process, which is to be avoided (para 52 of Young).
Regarding claim 8, Goto teaches the method of claim 1 but does not teach further comprising “removing” by the automated wire cutting apparatus each detached defective wire. Young teaches a method of cutting wires (26, see Figure 2A), wherein the method further comprises removing each detached wire (see Figure 2B where wire 26 is shown removed; also see para 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention so that the method further comprises removing by the automated wire cutting apparatus each detached defective wire. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Goto for at least the purpose of creating space for a new wirebonds (see Figure 2C and para 53 of Young).
Regarding claim 17, it is substantially similar to claim 7 and hence the rejection is substantially similar.
Claims 9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Isobe (US 20050239276) of prior record, hereinafter Isobe.
Regarding claim 9, Goto teaches the method of claim 8 but does not teach wherein removing each detached defective wire includes “shaking the packaging substrate”. Isobe teaches a method of forming interconnects, further teaching that a known method of removing unwanted interconnect material from a substrate may include vibrating (i.e. shaking) the substrate (para 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention so that removing each detached defective wire includes shaking the packaging substrate. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Goto for at least the purpose of using a known method of increasing efficiency of the removing process (para 55 of Isobe).
Regarding claims 18-19, Goto teaches the apparatus of claim 11 but does not teach further comprising “a packaging substrate shaker configured to shake the packaging substrate to remove detached defective wires”, and wherein “the packaging substrate shaker includes a packaging substrate shaker receptacle configured to receive the packaging substrate, the packaging substrate shaker being configured to cause the packaging substrate receptacle to vibrate”. Isobe teaches a method of forming interconnects, further teaching that a known method of removing unwanted interconnect material from a substrate may include vibrating (i.e. shaking) the substrate (para 55). 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 enable shaking for material removal by attaching the packaging substrate to a shaker with a holding mechanism for the packaging substrate while it is being shaken; i.e. the apparatus further comprises “a packaging substrate shaker configured to shake the packaging substrate to remove detached defective wires”, and wherein “the packaging substrate shaker includes a packaging substrate shaker receptacle configured to receive the packaging substrate, the packaging substrate shaker being configured to cause the packaging substrate receptacle to vibrate”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Goto for at least the purpose of using a known method of increasing efficiency of the removing process (para 55 of Isobe), by providing the apparatus with a shaker mechanism and a holding mechanism to hold the substrate while it is being shaken.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered. Whereas the double patenting arguments are persuasive and double patenting rejections have been withdrawn (as noted above), applicant’s other arguments are not persuasive. On pages 7-9 of applicant’s response, applicant argues about 35 USC 102 rejections of claim 1 (and similar claim 11) urging that new limitations added by amendment to claim 1 (and similar amendments to claim 11) are not taught by Goto. This argument is not persuasive. The revised rejection of claim 1 clarifies what parts of Goto teach each of the newly recited limitations. Note that claim 1 now recites “pattern of defective wires” without specifying any specific pattern, and as such, reads on any configuration or pattern of defective wires. Please also refer to attached Examiner Interview Summary.
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