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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1-4, 6, 8, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pendse et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0273043, hereinafter Pendse).
Regarding claim 1, figures 1-3B of Pendse disclose a semiconductor package, comprising:
a semiconductor die (14) having a top surface;
a bond pad (22) formed on the top surface;
a bond wire (26) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is attached to the bond pad; and
a contact pad (32), wherein the second end of the bond wire is attached to the contact pad by a stitch bond (¶ 39), the stitch bond having a plateau region formed between a cut end and a ramped portion, wherein a bottom surface of the plateau region forms an attachment to the contact pad, a bottom surface of the cut end physically contacting the contract pad.
Regarding claim 2, figures 1-3B of Pendse disclose the plateau region has a uniform thickness.
Regarding claim 3, figures 1-3B of Pendse disclose the plateau region has a top surface that is generally parallel to the bottom surface.
Regarding claim 4, as per the claim limitation “the plateau region has a thickness that is determined by a height of a boss portion of a capillary tool”, which is drawn to process steps of a product-by-process claim, such method step(s) are not considered to render an old apparatus patentable where the prior art teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. In the regard, both the claimed product and the prior art product would be the same or substantially the same. That is even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, the determination of patentability of the claims is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 6, figures 1-3B of Pendse disclose discloses the ramped portion provides a transition between a plateau region thickness and a thickness of the bond wire (26).
Regarding claim 8, figures 1-3B of Pendse disclose discloses the first end of the bond wire (26) is attached to the bond pad (22) by a ball bond (24).
Regarding claim 18, figures 1-3B of Pendse disclose discloses a wire bond in a semiconductor package, comprising:
a bond pad (22) formed on the top surface of a semiconductor die (14);
a conductive wire (26) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is attached to the bond pad; and
a contact pad (32), wherein the second end of the conductive wire is attached to the contact pad by a stitch bond (¶ 39), the stitch bond having a plateau region formed between a cut end and a ramped portion, wherein a bottom surface of the plateau region forms an attachment to the contact pad., and wherein a vertical thickness of the conductive wire at a top point of the cut end surface and a vertical thickness of the conductive wire at the plateau region are uniform, and a bottom surface of the cut end physically contacting the contact pad.
Regarding claim 19, figures 1-3B of Pendse disclose the plateau region has a uniform thickness, the plateau region having a top surface that is generally parallel to the bottom surface, the plateau region thickness determined by a height of a boss portion of a capillary tool; and
wherein the ramped portion provides a transition between a plateau region thickness and a thickness of the conductive wire.
As per the claim limitation “the plateau region has a thickness that is determined by a height of a boss portion of a capillary tool”, which is drawn to process steps of a product-by-process claim, such method step(s) are not considered to render an old apparatus patentable where the prior art teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. In the regard, both the claimed product and the prior art product would be the same or substantially the same. That is even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, the determination of patentability of the claims is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
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.
Claim 5, 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Pendse in view of Ano (US Pat 7,192,861)
Regarding claim 5, Pendse does not explicitly disclose the plateau region has a thickness that is between 20 and 30 percent of a diameter of the bond wire.
However, it would have been obvious to form the plateau region with a thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In 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)).
Regarding claim 7, Pendse does not explicitly disclose the plateau region has a width that is between 50 and 100 percent wider than a width of the bond wire.
However, it would have been obvious to form the plateau region with a width within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In 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)).
Regarding claim 20, figures 1-3B of Pendse disclose discloses the first end of the bond wire (26) is attached to the bond pad (22) by a ball bond (24).
Pendse does not explicitly disclose the plateau region has a thickness that is between 20 and 30 percent of a diameter of the bond wire, nor
that the plateau region has a width that is between 50 and 100 percent wider than a width of the bond wire.
However, it would have been obvious to form the plateau region with a thickness/width within the claimed ranges, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU-HSI DAVID SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm ET.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/YU-HSI D SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights