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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 1/26/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-13 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).
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 moving the bond wedge in the loop pattern comprises a retrograde movement whereby the bond wedge moves away from the second bonding surface.
Yamazaki teaches a method of wire bonding wherein the distance between bonding points is 3-4 mm and capillary (2) moves in a profile 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 loop and prevent sagging or deformation; 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 loop profile into Siepe in order to control the height of the loop and prevent sagging or deformation.
Regarding claims 2-6, while Siepe does not teach the following movements the incorporation of the Yamazaki loop profile does as noted below:
wherein the loop pattern comprises a first movement immediately after bonding the bond wire to the first bonding surface and a second movement immediately after the first movement,
wherein the first movement [movement to point B] moves the bond wedge vertically away from the first bonding surface, and wherein the second movement is the retrograde movement [movement to point C];
wherein the retrograde movement [movement to point C] moves the wire bonder in a lateral direction that is substantially parallel to the first bonding surface;
wherein the loop pattern comprises a third movement [movement to point D] immediately after the second movement, and wherein the third movement moves the wire bonder vertically away from the first bonding surface;
wherein the loop pattern moves the bond wedge laterally towards the second bonding surface immediately after the third movement [movement to point E];
wherein the loop pattern comprises a fourth movement immediately after the third movement and a fifth movement immediately after the fourth movement,
wherein the fourth movement [movement to point E] moves the bond wedge in a tilted direction that moves vertically away from the first bonding surface and laterally towards the second bonding surface, and
wherein the fifth movement [movement to point F/G] moves the bond wedge in a tilted direction that moves vertically towards from the first bonding surface and laterally towards the second bonding surface.
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 claims 11-13, Siepe does not teach:
wherein a bond loop length of the wire bond loop is ≤5,500/4000 μm, and wherein a bond loop height of the wire bond loop is ≤1,800/1,400 μm.
Yamazaki teaches the distance between bonding points is 3-4 mm (3000-4000 μm) and that the height of the loop is a controllable parameter; 1:30-33 and 2:40-45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a bond 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.
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