DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the election filed 25 November 2025. Claims 10-29 are currently pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 10-29, in the reply filed on 25 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “core means” and “coating means” in claim 17; “the core means” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the conductive material" in line 1. It is unclear which conductive material this limitation refers to - the first conductive material or the second conductive material, as recited in claim 25. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed said limitation refers to the “first conductive material” of claim 25, line 2.
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 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0073859 A1 to Lo et al. (hereinafter “Lo”).
Regarding independent claim 25, Lo (Fig. 2) discloses a bond wire, comprising: an outer layer 14 comprised of a first conductive material (¶ 0018 - gold); and an inner layer comprising: pieces of a second conductive material 22 (¶ 0019); and a non-conductive material 12 (¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 26, Lo (Fig. 2) discloses the bond wire of claim 25, wherein the conductive material 14 is selected from a group of materials comprising gold, silver, copper and aluminum (¶ 0018 - gold).
Regarding claim 27, Lo (Fig. 2) discloses the bond wire of claim 25; the limitation "wherein the non-conductive material is recycled material" is merely a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Regarding claim 28, Lo (Fig. 2) discloses the bond wire of claim 25, wherein the non-conductive material 12 is a thermoplastic material (¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 29, Lo (Fig. 2) discloses the bond wire of claim 25, wherein the pieces of the second conductive material 22 comprises shavings of one or more metals (¶ 0018; ¶ 0021 - 22 is formed using electroless plating and is interpreted to comprise “shavings”).
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.
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.
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 10-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of US 2023/0184568 A1 to Salter et al. (hereainfter “Salter”).
Regarding independent claim 10, Lo (Fig. 1) discloses a bond wire, comprising: a core comprising: a non-conductive material 12 (¶ 0015); and an outer layer 14 (¶ 0018) surrounding the core, the outer layer comprising a conductive material (¶ 0018 - gold, copper, aluminum).
Lo fails to expressly disclose: a conductive filler blended with the non-conductive material. In the same field of endeavor, Salter discloses conductive filler (¶ 0008 - filler includes graphene) blended with non-conductive material (¶ 0008 - polymer, recycled PET) for use in electrical conductivity in semiconductor devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the material of Salter in the bond wire of Lo for the purpose of providing a wire with increased electrical conductivity and structural integrity (¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 11, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 10, and a ratio of the conductive filler to the non-conductive material (Salter, ¶ 0008 - disclosing a ratio of conductive filler to the non-conductive material), however does not expressly disclose said ratio is based, at least in part, on expected thermal conductivity characteristics of the bond wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider expected thermal conductivity characteristics of the bond wire and alter the ratio of conductive filler to non-conductive material accordingly, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, the conductive filler ratio is considered a result effective variable because it affects the characteristics of the resultant material. Thus the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the conductive filler ratio for the purpose of adjusting the material characteristics (e.g., resistivity, flexibility, thermal conductivity, etc.) in order to meet design requirements.
Regarding claim 12, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 10, and a diameter of the core (Lo, ¶ 0017), however does not expressly disclose said diameter is based, at least in part, on expected thermal conductivity characteristics of the bond wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider expected thermal conductivity characteristics of the bond wire and alter the diameter of the core accordingly, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, the diameter of the core is considered a result effective variable because it affects the overall size and physical characteristics of the bond wire. Thus the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the diameter of the core for the purpose of adjusting the characteristics of the bond wire (e.g., size, heat retention, resistivity, etc.) in order to meet design requirements.
Regarding claim 13, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 10, Lo discloses further wherein the outer layer 14 is comprised of gold (Lo, ¶ 0018).
Regarding claim 14, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 10, Salter discloses further wherein the conductive filler is one or more of graphene and metallic powder (Salter, ¶ 0008 - graphene).
Regarding claim 15, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 10, Salter discloses further wherein the non-conductive material is comprised of recycled materials (Salter, ¶ 0008 - polymer, recycled PET).
Regarding claim 16, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 10, wherein the core comprises between ten percent to forty percent of the bond wire (Lo, ¶ 0017).
Regarding independent claim 17, Lo (Fig. 1) discloses a bond wire for a semiconductor device, comprising: a core means, comprising: a non-conductive material 12 (¶ 0015); and a coating means surrounding the core means, the coating means comprising a conductive material 14 (¶ 0018).
Lo fails to expressly disclose: a conductive filler blended with the non-conductive material. In the same field of endeavor, Salter discloses conductive filler (¶ 0008 - filler includes graphene) blended with non-conductive material (¶ 0008 - polymer, recycled PET) for use in electrical conductivity in semiconductor devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the material of Salter in the bond wire of Lo for the purpose of providing a wire with increased electrical conductivity and structural integrity (¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 18, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 17, wherein the conductive filler is one or more of graphene and metallic powder (Salter, ¶ 0008 - graphene).
Regarding claim 19, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 17, and a ratio of the conductive filler to the non-conductive material (Salter, ¶ 0008 - disclosing a ratio of conductive filler to the non-conductive material), however does not expressly disclose said ratio is based, at least in part, on expected thermal conductivity characteristics of the bond wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider expected thermal conductivity characteristics of the bond wire and alter the ratio of conductive filler to non-conductive material accordingly, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, the conductive filler ratio is considered a result effective variable because it affects the characteristics of the resultant material. Thus the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the conductive filler ratio for the purpose of adjusting the material characteristics (e.g., resistivity, flexibility, thermal conductivity, etc.) in order to meet design requirements.
Regarding claim 20, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 17, Lo discloses further wherein the conductive material 14 is selected from a group comprising gold, silver, aluminum and copper (Lo, ¶ 0018 - gold, copper, aluminum).
Regarding claim 21, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 17, wherein the core means comprises between ten percent to forty percent of the bond wire (Lo, ¶ 0017).
Regarding claim 22, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 17, Salter discloses further wherein the non-conductive material is a recycled material (Salter, ¶ 0008 - polymer, recycled PET).
Regarding claim 23, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 22, wherein the recycled material is selected from a group of materials comprising aluminum, metal, paper, glass, rubber, plastic, porcelain, and ceramics (Salter, ¶ 0008 - plastic).
Regarding claim 24, Lo and Salter disclose the bond wire of claim 22, wherein a size of the conductive filler varies (Salter, ¶ 0008 - graphene and carbon nanostructures).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2003/0019661 A1 to Aoyama et al. disclosing a composite conductor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm 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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
5 January 2026
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights