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 § 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 1, 3, and 7-10 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 1 recites “that moves vertically towards from the first bonding surface”. This is indefinite since toward and from contradict each other. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “that moves vertically towards the first bonding surface”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the copper or copper alloy wire”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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).
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 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 moves the bond wedge vertically away from the first bonding surface,
wherein the second movement is the retrograde movement,
wherein the loop pattern comprises a third movement immediately after the second movement,
wherein the third movement moves the wire bonder vertically away from the first bonding surface,
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 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 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 movements form an arched pattern with an apex point in between the first bonding surface and 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 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 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 loop profile into Siepe in order to control the height of the loop and prevent sagging or deformation.
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, and
wherein a bond loop height of the wire bond loop is between 1,200 and 2,200 μm.
Concerning the retrograde movement:
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 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.
Concerning the loop height:
Yamazaki teaches the height of the loop is a controllable parameter based on wire diameter, hardness, etc., wherein the 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 bond 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.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“Accordingly, Yamazaki does not disclose or suggest performing the claimed "fifth movement" that moves the bond wedge in a tilted direction that moves vertically and laterally towards the second bonding surface, nor does Yamazaki disclose or suggest an arched pattern between two tilted movements. Instead, the pattern includes the circular movement as described above. This circular movement is clearly an integral aspect of Yamazaki's loop pattern. Because the circular arc has a radius equal to the loop height H,2 the bonding tool moves to the second bond point without changing the loop apex height. The circular motion keeps the wire geometry2 See Yamazaki, col. 2, lines 21-24 consistent during the transition. Accordingly, the cited references do not disclose or suggest the claimed sequence of movements that produces the arched loop pattern with an apex formed between the bonding surfaces.”
Note that “tilted direction” is very broad and whether the bond wedge movement is straight or arching/circular from point E to F both movements are still tilted as they simultaneously moving down and to the side. As for Yamazaki not teaching an arch, the examiner disagrees. Yamazaki D-E and E-F movements form an arch pattern with an apex at E, while it may not be symmetrical like that of the applicants it is still an arch pattern.
The applicant argues,
“As explained above, the combined teachings of Siepe and Yamazaki do not disclose any specific loop height values or loop height ranges. Moreover, these teachings do not establish a nexus between bond loop length and bond loop height, as encompassed by claim 24.”
Note that there is no claim 24. Even so, Yamazaki teaches there is a relationship between bond length and loop height; 2:40-3:15. Thus, one generically applying the teachings of Yamazaki to Siepe would achieve the claimed results as noted in the rejection above.
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 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