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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/31/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 21 the “and” between the wherein clauses is misplaced. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are 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 7 recites “wherein the wire guide is formed from a metal with a higher material hardness than the copper or copper alloy wire” while claim 1 recites “wherein the wire guide is formed from a material with a higher material hardness than the bond wire”. It is unclear if the metal is the material or if the metal is in addition to the material. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as either.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siepe et al. (2009/0127317 A1) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 4,932,584) and/alternatively Holdgrafer et al. (US 5,205,463), as noted below.
Regarding claim 1, Siepe teaches:
A method of forming a bond wire connection, the method comprising:
providing a wire bonder [device (100); figures 2A-7C] comprising a bond wedge [bonding stamp (1)] with a wire guide [guide device (2)]; and
forming a wire bond loop by initially bonding a bond wire [Cu wire (52); 0080, 0106, 0108] to a first bonding surface [metallization (61)] using the bond wedge, then moving the bond wedge in a loop pattern whereby the bond wire passes through the wire guide, and then bonding the bond wire to a second bonding surface [metallization (51)] using the bond wedge [see figures 2A-7C], and
wherein the wire guide is formed from a material with a higher material hardness than the bond wire [ceramic, metal, or brass; 0110].
Siepe does not teach:
wherein the loop pattern comprises a first rectilinear movement immediately after bonding the bond wire to the first bonding surface and a second rectilinear movement immediately after the first movement,
wherein the first rectilinear movement moves the bond wedge vertically away from the first bonding surface,
wherein the second rectilinear movement is the retrograde movement,
wherein the loop pattern comprises a third movement immediately after the second movement,
wherein the third rectilinear movement moves the wire bonder vertically away from the first bonding surface,
wherein the loop pattern comprises a fourth rectilinear movement immediately after the third rectilinear movement and a fifth rectilinear movement immediately after the fourth rectilinear movement,
wherein the fourth rectilinear movement moves the bond wedge in a tilted direction that moves vertically away from the first bonding surface and laterally towards the second bonding surface,
wherein the fifth rectilinear movement moves the bond wedge in a tilted direction that moves vertically towards from the first bonding surface and laterally towards the second bonding surface, and
wherein the fourth and fifth rectilinear movements form an arched pattern with an apex point in between the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface.
Concerning the first through third rectilinear movements:
Yamazaki teaches a method of wire bonding wherein the distance between bonding points is 3-4 mm and capillary/tool (2) moves in a pattern from points A-G, with A-B being the first movement, B-C being the second movement, C-D being the third movement, D-E being the fourth movement, and E-F being the fifth movement, to form a wire loop so as to control the height of the wire loop and prevent sagging or deformation, wherein B-C being a retrograde movement and the fourth and fifth movements are tilted and form an arch pattern with E as the apex; 1:26-49, 2:7-45, 3:12-23, and figures 1-2e.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Yamazaki tool pattern into Siepe in order to control the height of the wire loop and prevent sagging or deformation.
Concerning the fourth and fifth rectilinear movements:
Holdgrafer teaches several tool patterns and the resulting wire loops in figure 2. Note that B is almost identical to Yamazaki and E forms two kinks with all rectilinear movements with the second being formed by the tool moving in a tilted direction that moves vertically away from the first bonding surface and laterally towards the second bonding surface, third movement, and immediately thereafter in a tilted direction that moves vertically towards from the first bonding surface and laterally towards the second bonding surface, fourth movement, wherein there is an apex between these two movements; 4:38-64.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the Yamazaki D-E and E-F movements with the Holdgrafer third and fourth movements in order to add a second kink to the wire loop, minus any unexpected results. One would have desired the second kink in order to increase the clearance of the wire loop and/or to further increase stability.
Regarding claim 7, Siepe teaches:
wherein the bond wire is a copper or copper alloy wire [Cu wire (52); 0080, 0106, 0108], and wherein the wire guide is formed from a metal with a higher material hardness than the copper or copper alloy wire [ceramic, metal, or brass; 0110].
Regarding claim 8, Siepe teaches:
wherein the wire guide comprises any one or more of: Cu [brass], Ni, Ti, Zn, Fe, and alloys thereof.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Siepe teaches:
wherein the bond wire is a copper or copper alloy wire with a diameter of between 300 μm and 500 μm; or 400 μm [400 μm; 0106].
Regarding claim 20, Siepe teaches:
A method of forming a bond wire connection, the method comprising:
providing a wire bonder [device (100); figures 2A-7C] comprising a bond wedge [bonding stamp (1)] with a wire guide [guide device (2)]; and
forming a wire bond loop by initially bonding a bond wire [Cu wire (52); 0080, 0106, 0108] to a first bonding surface [metallization (61)] using the bond wedge, then moving the bond wedge in a loop pattern whereby the bond wire passes through the wire guide, and then bonding the bond wire to a second bonding surface [metallization (51)] using the bond wedge [see figures 2A-7C], and
wherein the wire guide is formed from a material with a higher material hardness than the bond wire [ceramic, metal, or brass; 0110], and
wherein the bond wire is a copper or copper alloy wire with a diameter of between 300 μm and 500 μm [400 μm; 0106].
Siepe does not teach:
wherein moving the bond wedge in the loop pattern comprises a retrograde movement whereby the bond wedge moves away from the second bonding surface,
wherein a bond loop height of the wire bond loop is between 1,200 and 2,200 μm,
wherein the wire bond loop has an apex located between the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface and a permanent kink between the apex and the first bonding surface, and
wherein the permanent kink in the wire bond loop comprises an acute curving of the bond wire away from the second bonding surface.
Concerning the retrograde movement, apex, and kink:
Note that the specification states, “The kink 110 results from the combination of moving the bond wedge 202 in the retrograde movement and using a wire guide 204 with a high stiffness that is formed from a material with a higher material hardness than the bond wire 108”, 0025.
Siepe teaches the guide device (2) may be made of ceramic or metal since they have a higher abrasion resistance to Cu-base wires; 0010.
Yamazaki teaches a method of wire bonding wherein the distance between bonding points is 3-4 mm (3000-4000 μm) and capillary (2) moves in a pattern from points A-G, with movement to point C being a retrograde movement, to form a wire loop so as to control the height of the wire loop and prevent sagging or deformation, wherein the apex of the wire loop is between the bonding surfaces; 1:26-49, 2:7-45, 3:12-23, and figures 1-2e.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Yamazaki tool pattern into Siepe in order to control the height of the wire loop and prevent sagging or deformation.
Since a retrograde movement and high stiffness wire guide requirements for forming an acute curing kink are meet then the prior art process forms the claimed kink between the apex and first bonding surface.
Concerning the wire loop height:
Yamazaki teaches the height of the wire loop is a controllable parameter based on wire diameter, hardness, etc., wherein the wire loop apex is equal to the length of A-B, which is 3-15 times the diameter of the wire, plus the length of B-C, which is approximately half of the length of A-B; 2:40-3:15.
So, with the Siepe 400 μm wire the apex would be approximately between 1800-9000 μm.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a wire loop within these parameters since they are known to be controlled, and/or in order to manufacture a desired electronic component, minus any unexpected results.
Yamazaki and the claims differ in that Yamazaki does not teach the exact same ranges as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time/before the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Yamazaki overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003); In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974), and MPEP 2144.05. This reasoning applies to any claim and limitation in this action where a range is being claimed.
Alternatively, should the applicant successfully argue that Siepe in view of Yamazaki does not result in the claimed kink the following applies:
Note that the specification states, “The kink 110 results from the combination of moving the bond wedge 202 in the retrograde movement and using a wire guide 204 with a high stiffness that is formed from a material with a higher material hardness than the bond wire 108”, 0025.
Siepe teaches the guide device (2) may be made of ceramic or metal since they have a higher abrasion resistance to Cu-base wires; 0010.
What Yamazaki teaches is noted above.
Holdgrafer teaches several tool patterns and the resulting wire loops in figure 2. Note that B is almost identical to Yamazaki and E forms two kinks with all rectilinear movements with the second being formed by the tool moving in a tilted direction that moves vertically away from the first bonding surface and laterally towards the second bonding surface, third movement, and immediately thereafter in a tilted direction that moves vertically towards from the first bonding surface and laterally towards the second bonding surface, fourth movement, wherein there is an apex between these two movements; 4:38-64.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the Yamazaki D-E and E-F movements with the Holdgrafer third and fourth movements in order to add a second kink to the wire loop, minus any unexpected results. One would have desired the second kink in order to increase the clearance of the wire and/or to increase stability.
Since the first through the fifth rectilinear movements, which includes the retrograde movement, and the high stiffness wire guide requirements are met; i.e. all claimed steps and specification requirements are met, then the prior art process forms an acute curving kink as claimed.
Regarding claim 22, Siepe teaches:
wherein the bond wire is a copper bond wire [Cu wire (52); 0080, 0106, 0108].
Siepe does not teach
wherein a bond loop length of the wire bond loop is between 3000 μm and 4500 μm.
Yamazaki teaches the distance between bonding points is 3-4 mm (3000-4000 μm); 1:30-34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a wire loop within these parameters since they are known and/or known to be controlled, and/or in order to manufacture a desired electronic component, minus any unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights