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
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 1-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0027289, hereinafter Kurihara in view of CHO et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0037476, hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 1, figure 8f of Kurihara discloses
an interlayer insulating film (14);
a first metal film (aluminum, ¶ 74) arranged on the interlayer insulating film, the first metal film forming an uppermost layer wiring having a bonding pad (7);
a protective film (11) arranged on the interlayer insulating film so as to cover the first metal film;
an opening formed in the protective film to expose the bonding pad;
a second metal film (9) arranged on the bonding pad exposed from the opening; and
a bonding wire bonded to the second metal film (¶ 94).
Kurihara does not explicitly disclose, wherein a concentration of impurities at a crystal grain boundary of the first metal film is higher than a concentration of impurities in crystal grains of the first metal film, and wherein a maximum grain size of the crystal grains included in the first metal film is less than 5 µm.
However, specification of the instant application disclose the claimed features are a result of oxygen introduced during the sputtering process. In the same field of endeavor, Cho discloses oxygen can be introduced during sputtering process of the aluminum layer (¶ 51).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to introduce oxygen during a sputter process of the aluminum layer as taught by Cho for the purpose of controlling the performance of the deposited layer. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to vary sputtering conditions and oxygen concentration within ranges such that the claimed material qualities (concentration at crystal grain boundary, grain size, etc), since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 2, Kurihara discloses the first metal film includes a first metal element, and wherein the first metal element is aluminum (¶ 74).
Kurihara does not explicitly disclose a content of the first metal element in the first metal film is 99% by mass or more.
However, it would have been obvious to form the metal with a content 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 3, Kurihara discloses the first metal element is aluminum (¶ 74), wherein the first metal film further includes a second metal element.
Kurihara does not explicitly disclose the second metal element is at least one of copper, silicon, and palladium.
However, the claimed materials are well known in the art to be alloyed with aluminum in bond pads and it would have been obvious to use one of the claimed materials as the second metal element for the purpose of selecting a suitable and well-known material.
Regarding claims 4-5, Cho discloses the impurities are oxygen (¶ 51).
Kurihara in view of Cho does not explicitly disclose a concentration of oxygen in the crystal grains of the first metal film is 0.6 atomic % or more and 0.8 atomic % or less, and
wherein a concentration of oxygen at the crystal grain boundary of the first metal film is 0.9 atomic % or more and 1.5 atomic % or less.
However, it would have been obvious to vary sputtering conditions and oxygen concentration within ranges such that the claimed concentrations are met, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 14, Kurihara does not explicitly disclose hardness of the first metal film is 0.8 GPa or more.
However, it would have been obvious to vary sputtering conditions and oxygen concentration within ranges such that the claimed hardness is achieved, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 15, figure 8f of Kurihara does not explicitly disclose a width of the opening is 300 µm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to form opening 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)).
Claims 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara in view of Cho, as applied to claim 6, further in view of Spory (US PG Pub 2022/0157749).
Regarding claims 7-10, Kurihara does not explicitly disclose the second metal film is an electroless plating film,
wherein the second metal film includes a first film arranged on the bonding pad, and wherein the first film is an electroless nickel plating film,
wherein the second metal film further includes a second film arranged on the first film, and wherein the second film is an electroless gold plating film, OR
wherein the second metal film further includes a second film arranged on the first film and a third film arranged on the second film, wherein the second film is an electroless palladium plating film, and wherein the third film is an electroless gold plating film.
In the same field of endeavor, figure 3C of Spory discloses a second metal film further includes a second film (324) arranged on a first film (304) and a third film (344) arranged on the second film, wherein the second film is an electroless palladium plating film, and wherein the third film is an electroless gold plating film (¶ 38-45).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the second metal film using the three claimed films as taught by Spory for the purpose of producing a more reliable bond (¶ 45).
Regarding claim 12, Kurihara discloses the bonding wire includes a third metal element, wherein, and wherein the third metal element is any one of aluminum, copper, silver, and gold (¶ 72).
Kurihara does not explicitly disclose a content of the third metal element in the bonding wire is 99% by mass or more.
However, it would have been obvious to form the wire with a content of the third metal element 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Cho’s sputtering method is for a gate electrode and the reference does not suggest forming an element that corresponds to Kurihara’s base layer or the claimed first metal film.
However, Kurihara discloses forming an aluminum layer and Cho is merely relied upon to teach a suitable method for forming such a layer. It is prima facie obvious when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, the rejection is deemed proper and made final.
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 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