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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/25 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “guide jig affixed to the anvil” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a guide jig affixed to the anvil”. Note that broadest reasonable meaning of affixed is “To secure to something; attach”. One looking at figures 1, 2, and, most importantly, 5, would clearly see that guide jig (50) does not even touch anvil (30) let alone be affixed/secured/attached to anvil (30).
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 1-11 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, “a guide jig affixed to the anvil” which previously recited “a guide fixedly coupled to the anvil”. While the latter appears to be broader, it is unclear as to what the difference is between these two limitations in light of figures 1, 2, and 5 since none of these show guide (50) actually affixed/secured/attached to anvil (30). Thus, it is unclear what is meant by “affixed”. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted being secured via any number of intervening components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by Brown (US 2022/0088701 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses:
An ultrasonic welding device [welder (10); figure 1] comprising:
an anvil [fixture (12)] configured to support a flexible first member below and overlapping a flexible second member [note that the first and second members are material worked upon and thus not structurally limiting];
a horn [sonotrode (20)] configured to ultrasonically weld the first member and the second member with ultrasonic vibration and configured to change elevation thereof toward the second member [0041]; and
a guide jig [sleeve (44)] affixed to the anvil [figure 1 shows welder (10) the claimed components which are inherently “affixed” to each other via any number of other components in order to be a welder and/or because as a freely floating base and/or window clamp would make welding impossible], defining an opening [opening of the sleeve at sonotrode end (38)] corresponding to a welding portion of the first member and the second member and configured to guide elevation and ultrasonic vibration of the horn, the guide jig being configured to cover an external plane of the welding portion with a plane corresponding portion during ultrasonic welding of the first member and the second member [Any plane of the sleeve meets this limitation since the members are material worked upon and not structurally limiting. However, for the purposes of meeting dependent claims this plane will be either the bottom surface of the sleeve or the top of the notches (72), unless stated otherwise].
Concerning any claimed results, materials, and/or functions:
Since the prior art apparatus, i.e. the apparatus based on the prior art reference above, is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art apparatus is capable of achieving any claimed function with any claimed material to achieve any claimed result. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 10, and 11, are solely drawn to material worked upon and thus are not further limiting structurally.
Regarding claim 3, Brown discloses:
wherein the guide jig is configured to hold an external lateral side of the welding portion with a lateral corresponding portion [the sides of notches (72) that extend down from the top of the notches].
Regarding claim 4, Brown discloses:
wherein the lateral corresponding portion protrudes downwardly from the plane corresponding portion at three sides thereof [In this case, the plane corresponding portion is the bottom surface of the sleeve and the lateral corresponding portions are the sides of the notches extending from there. Note that downwardly is relative to the point of the viewer].
Regarding claim 5, Brown discloses:
wherein the guide jig comprises:
a guide portion [end of the sleeve comprising the opening] defining the opening;
the plane corresponding portion [see above]; and
an installer [end of the sleeve comprising flange (52); figure 4A] connected to one side of the guide portion, and configured to be installed in a base [biasing assembly (46)].
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Brown discloses:
wherein the guide portion defines the opening in a center thereof, and comprises an external portion outside the opening, and wherein a first width of the opening in a width direction is greater than a second width of the external portion in the width direction [one looking at the plan view of the opening of the sleeve would note that the opening is larger than the walls of the sleeve in all directions]; and
wherein a first length of the opening in a length direction is greater than a second length of the external portion in the length direction on one side of the opening [one simply needs to choose any two perpendicular lines that cross at the center of the opening to meet the claimed width and length requirements].
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byars et al. (8,720,767 B2) in view of Melack et al. (US 2016/0151966 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Byars teaches:
An ultrasonic welding device [wire bonding machine; claims 11-19 and figures 5A-8] comprising:
an anvil [base (216)] configured to support a flexible first member below and overlapping a flexible second member [note that the first and second members are material worked upon and thus not structurally limiting];
a horn [while not shown, ultrasonic bonding; 6:16-18, inherently requires a horn in order to weld] configured to ultrasonically weld the first member and the second member with ultrasonic vibration; and
a guide jig [window clamp (600)], affixed to the anvil [the wire bonding machine of claims 11-19 comprises the claimed components which are intrinsically “affixed” to each other via any number of other components in order to be a wire bonding machine and/or because as a freely floating base and/or window clamp would make welding impossible], defining an opening [see figures 6A-B] corresponding to a welding portion of the first member and the second member and configured to guide elevation and ultrasonic vibration of the horn, the guide jig being configured to cover an external plane of the welding portion with a plane corresponding portion [Any plane of the window clamp meets this limitation since the members are material worked upon and not structurally limiting. However, for the purposes of meeting dependent claims this plane will be any number of the bottom surfaces that are parallel to top surfaces] during ultrasonic welding of the first member and the second member.
Byars does not specifically teach:
configured to change elevation thereof toward the second member.
While a layman in the art would clearly understand that the horn is moved up and down in order to enter into window (600) Melack will be used to teach this.
Melack teaches ultrasonic welding machine (101) positions tip (105) of horn (103) into contact with the components being welded inside cutouts (305) and vibrates the horn up and down or wide to side; 0019, 0027, and figures 4A-5B.
Thus, it would have been obvious, if not necessary, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Melack and move the horn vertically in order to position the horn as needed and/or to vibrate up and down if needed.
Concerning any claimed results, materials, and/or functions:
Since the prior art apparatus, i.e. the apparatus based on the combined prior art references above, is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art apparatus is capable of achieving any claimed function with any claimed material to achieve any claimed result. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 10, and 11, are solely drawn to material worked upon and thus are not further limiting structurally.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Melack teaches:
wherein the guide jig is configured to hold an external lateral side of the welding portion with a lateral corresponding portion [any of the small vertical surfaces/sides that connect the bottom surfaces together].
wherein the lateral corresponding portion protrudes downwardly from the plane corresponding portion at three sides thereof [there are four vertical sides that connect the bottom surfaces; note the claims do not limit the sides to three].
Regarding claim 5, Byars teaches:
wherein the guide jig comprises:
a guide portion defining the opening [the middle section having the openings];
the plane corresponding portion [see above]; and
an installer [section having holes for screws (706)] connected to one side of the guide portion, and configured to be installed in a base [bridge (702)].
Regarding claim 6, Byars teaches:
wherein the guide portion defines the opening in a center thereof, and comprises an external portion outside the opening, and wherein a first width of the opening in a width direction is greater than a second width of the external portion in the width direction [the enlarged view in figure 7 depicts the opening width being wider than the top or bottom sides of the frame (the portions of the surface that separate the openings)].
Regarding claim 7, Byars teaches:
wherein a first length of the opening in a length direction is greater than a second length of the external portion in the length direction on one side of the opening [the enlarged view in figure 7 depicts the window length being longer than the left or right sides of the frame (the surface portions that span from the opening to the vertical walls)].
Regarding claim 8, Byars teaches:
wherein the second length is greater than the second width [the enlarged figure in figure 7 depicts the left and right sides of the frame being greater than the top or bottom sides of the frame].
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byars et al. (8,720,767 B2) in view of Melack et al. (US 2016/0151966 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Distefano et al. (US 5,390,844).
Regarding claim 12, Byars does not teach:
wherein the first member and the second member comprise an aluminum material, and wherein the horn comprises tungsten (WC) or a tungsten carbide material having strength and stiffness that are greater than those of the first member and the second member.
Distefano teaches ultrasonic bonding tools may comprise tungsten because it is a wear resistant material; 10:50-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the horn to comprise tungsten since it is wear resistant and it is known to do so.
Regarding claim 13, Byars does not teach:
wherein the first member and the second member comprise an aluminum material, and wherein the guide jig comprises tungsten (WC) or a tungsten carbide material having strength and stiffness that are greater than those of the first member and the second member.
However, Byars is open to using any material for window (600) or as a coating; 5:46-52.
Distefano teaches ultrasonic bonding tools may comprise tungsten because it is a wear resistant material; 10:50-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the window from a material comprising tungsten due to its wear resistance.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2022/0088701 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Distefano et al. (US 5,390,844).
Regarding claim 12, Brown does not teach:
wherein the first member and the second member comprise an aluminum material, and wherein the horn comprises tungsten (WC) or a tungsten carbide material having strength and stiffness that are greater than those of the first member and the second member.
Distefano teaches ultrasonic bonding tools may comprise tungsten because it is a wear resistant material; 10:50-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the sonotrode to comprise tungsten since it is wear resistant and it is known to do so.
Regarding claim 13, Brown does not teach:
wherein the first member and the second member comprise an aluminum material, and wherein the guide jig comprises tungsten (WC) or a tungsten carbide material having strength and stiffness that are greater than those of the first member and the second member.
Distefano teaches ultrasonic bonding tools may comprise tungsten because it is a wear resistant material; 10:50-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the sleeve from a material comprising tungsten due to its wear resistance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byars et al. (8,720,767 B2) in view of Melack et al. (US 2016/0151966 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (US 5,249,726).
Regarding claim 14, Byars does not teach:
wherein the ultrasonic welding device further comprises an external support portion disposed at an exterior of the anvil to support the first member.
Sato teaches a clamping mechanism wherein feeding rolls (28, 29) are provided to support and feed the material worked upon and are outside/exterior of bonding stage (26); figures 1 and 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Sato feeding rolls concept into Byars in order to support and feed the workpieces to the bonding area.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2022/0088701 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (US 5,249,726).
Regarding claim 14, Brown does not teach:
wherein the ultrasonic welding device further comprises an external support portion disposed at an exterior of the anvil to support the first member.
Sato teaches a clamping mechanism wherein feeding rolls (28, 29) are provided to support and feed the material worked upon and are outside/exterior of bonding stage (26); figures 1 and 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Sato feeding rolls concept into Brown in order to support and feed the workpieces to the bonding area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“As can be seen in FIG. 1 of Brown, and in FIGS. 9A and 9B of Byars, reproduced below, Brown and Byars appear to respectively disclose that the alleged guide jig/sleeve 44 is configured to move with respect to the alleged anvil 12, and that a guide jig/window clamp 600 is configured to move with respect to the alleged anvil 216, and therefore do not appear to disclose "a guide jig affixed to the anvil."
The examiner notes that the applicant’s specification also does not appear to disclose "a guide jig affixed to the anvil" as noted above in the 112 rejections. However, giving this limitation an extremely broad interpretation as noted in the rejections, Brown and Byars do disclose/teach this limitation.
Conclusion
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