DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Response submitted on 12 December 2025. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 8 and 9 are newly submitted.
This application is a US national stage application under 35 USC 371 of PCT/JP2022/003599, filed on 31 January 2022.
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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Sekiya et al., US 2014/0020796, newly cited.
With respect to claim 1, Sekiya et al. disclose an Al bonding wire containing equal to or larger than 0.01 mass% and smaller than 0.8 mass% of one or more of Sc, Zr, and Mg in total, see paragraph [0017] and Table 1, wherein, as a result of measuring a crystal orientation on a cross-section parallel to a wire axis direction including a wire axis of the bonding wire, an orientation ratio of a <100> crystal orientation angled at 15 degrees or less to the wire axis direction is equal to or higher than 30% and equal to or lower than 90%, see paragraphs [0065] and Table 2.
With respect to newly-submitted claim 8, in the Al bonding wire of Sekiya et al. comprises equal to or larger than 0.01 mass% and equal to or smaller than 0.19 mass% of Mg, see paragraph [0017] and Table 1.
The preamble of claim 1 recites an Al bonding wire “for semiconductor devices”. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for semiconductor devices” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, US 2020/0040432, cited by Applicant on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 07 March 2025, of record.
With respect to claim 1, Kaneko discloses an Al bonding wire for semiconductor devices (see paragraph [0156]) containing equal to or larger than 0.01 mass% and smaller than 0.8 mass% of one or more of Sc, Zr, and Mg in total (see paragraphs [0012]-[0016]),
wherein, as a result of measuring a crystal orientation on a cross-section parallel to a wire axis direction including a wire axis of the bonding wire, an orientation ratio of a <100> crystal orientation angled at 15 degrees or less to the wire axis direction is equal to or higher than 30% and equal to or lower than 90%, see Figs. 4A-4B, 5, and paragraphs [0024], .[0085]-[0088}, and [0111]-[0123]. The Al bonding wire of Kaneko has the same composition as Applicant’s claimed Al bonding wire and is evaluated by an x-ray diffraction method (shown in Figs. 4A and 4B) to have an orientation ratio, as disclosed in paragraphs [0024], .[0085]-[0088}, and [0111]-[0123]. Therefore, Applicant’s claimed Al bonding wire is deemed obvious in light of the disclosure of Kaneko.
With respect to claim 2, the Al bonding wire of Kaneko further contains equal to or larger than 3 mass ppm and equal to or smaller than 500 mass ppm of one or more of Pd and Pt in total, see paragraphs [0016] and [0135]. Kaneko discloses that the Al bonding wire can be covered with Pd, resulting in improvements in contact resistance, solder wettability, and corrosion resistance. Although Kaneko does not expressly disclose that this coating is equal to or larger than 3 mass ppm and equal to or smaller than 500 mass ppm, since Kaneko discloses the inclusion of Pd improves contact resistance, solder wettability, and corrosion resistance, the amount of Pd is a result-effective variable. Therefore, the determination of the optimum amount of Pd covering the Al bonding wire could have been achieved through routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 3, the Al bonding wire of Kaneko further contains equal to or larger than 3 mass ppm and equal to or smaller than 100 mass ppm of Ni, see paragraph [0012].
With respect to claim 4, the Al bonding wire of Kaneko further contains
equal to or larger than 3 mass ppm and equal to or smaller than 750 mass ppm of one or more of Fe and Si in total, see paragraph [0012]..
With respect to claim 5, in the Al bonding wire of Kaneko a content of Al is equal to or larger than 98 mass%, see paragraph [0012].
With respect to claim 6, in the Al bonding wire of Kaneko, a balance of the Al bonding wire comprises Al and inevitable impurities, see paragraph [0012].
With respect to claim 7, Kaneko discloses a semiconductor device comprising the Al bonding wire, see paragraph [0145].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, US 2020/0040432 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sumi et al., US 2019/0345594, newly cited.
Kaneko is applied as above. With respect to dependent claim 9, Kaneko does not teach or suggest the Al bonding wire comprises equal to or larger than 0.01 mass% and smaller than 0.8 mass% of Sc. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sumi et al. disclose an aluminum wire comprising 0 to 0.5 mass% Sc, see the Abstract and paragraph [0042]. Scandium suppresses the coarsening of crystal grains and contributes to the improvement of the strength of the wire. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Sc in an amount equal to or larger than 0.01 mass% and smaller than 0.8 mass% in the Al bonding wire of Kaneko.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that that Kaneko does not teach or suggest the crystal- orientation parameter required by claim 1, because the present application and Kaneko use fundamentally different measurement methods, data outputs, and parameter definitions. However, this argument is not persuasive, since the present claims are drawn to an Al bonding wire. The method used to measure the orientation ratio cannot patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed Al bonding wire from the known Al bonding wire of Kaneko. The question is whether Kaneko’s Al bonding wire has an orientation ratio equal to or higher than 30% and equal to or lower than 90%.parameter. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Al bonding wire of Kaneko fails to satisfy the orientation ratio limitation of the pending claims, even though determined by a different measurement method.
Kaneko clearly teaches that the crystal orientation distribution is controlled so that the crystalline orientation in LD//<111> is suppressed and the crystalline orientation in LD//<100> is increased. Kaneko further teaches that the disclosed Al bonding wire has a crystal orientation distribution which satisfies a peak intensity ratio R (I200/I220) of the peak intensity I200 of the diffraction peak due to the {100} plane of a crystal to the peak intensity I220 of the diffraction peak due to the {110} plane of a crystal, of 0.20 or more. Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate a (001) standard projection and a (110) standard projection, respectively. Kaneko discloses that a crystal counted as the crystalline orientation in ND//<001> in X-ray diffraction measurement is substantially a crystal where a crystal plane located around the {100} plane is oriented in LD, and that the rate of the crystalline orientation in LD//<100> is increased. Kaneko further discloses that the aluminum bonding wire has a high rate of the crystalline orientation in ND//<001>, specifically, a high rate of the crystalline orientation in LD//<100> contributing to an improvement in bending workability and a low rate of the crystalline orientation in LD//<111> deteriorating bending workability, thus the Al bonding wire exhibits excellent bending workability, see paragraphs [0118]-[0123]. Kaneko clearly teaches that the ratio R is 0.20 or more, is more preferably 0.30 or more, still more preferably 0.45 or more, particularly preferably 0.60 or more, further preferably 0.75 or more. Based on the disclosure of Kaneko, the ratio R, based on crystal orientation, obviously corresponds to the orientation ratio of the pending claims. Simply pointing out that this ratio was measured by a different method than used by Applicants is insufficient to establish that the Al bonding wire of Kaneko does not satisfy the claim limitation of having an orientation ratio of a <100> crystal orientation equal to or higher than 30% and equal to or lower than 90%.
Applicant has further argued that Kaneko focuses on a different crystal population located in a different region of the material. Applicant states that claim 1 requires evaluating all grains in "a cross-section parallel to the wire axis including the wire axis", regardless of whether they exhibit deformation-induced orientation and regardless of whether they lie at the surface or interior”. Firstly, this argument is not commensurate is scope with independent claim 1 as presently written, since claim 1 is drawn to a bonding wire and does not require evaluating all grains in the cross-section parallel to the wire axis direction. Secondly, Kaneko clearly teaches in paragraph [0215] that “in the cross-section parallel to the one direction, and the main surface of such a wire rod had a crystal orientation distribution where the peak intensity ratio R (I200/I220) determined by an X-ray diffraction method satisfied 0.20 or more”. Therefore, in the measurement method of Kaneko, a cross-section parallel to the wire axis direction is evaluated.
For these reasons, Applicant’s claimed Al bonding wire is not deemed patentably distinct from the known Al bonding wire of Kaneko. Hence, the previous rejection of claims 1-7 as unpatentable over Kaneko has been maintained. Newly-submitted claims 8 and 9 have been rejected over newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose aluminum bonding wires.
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 MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
MARY A. WILCZEWSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898