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 with traverse of species ii, claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 12-17, in the reply filed on 11/24/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that that no serious burden exists in examining all the pending claims. This is not found persuasive because for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search (as defined in MPEP § 808.02). The restriction requirement clearly meets this requirement. While that prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant, an unsupported statement by applicant that no serious burden would exist in the examination of all pending claims does not qualify as an "appropriate showing" or "evidence". See MPEP 803. The transversal is also on the ground that “the Examiner has not asserted or established that the alleged species are mutually exclusive, nor has the Examiner identified any particular features alleged as being mutually exclusive among the alleged species”. This is not persuasive since the examiner noted that each species has a distinctive layout. Additionally, since the applicant had an opportunity to state these species are not mutually distinct it but did not, it appears the applicant agrees.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “bonder configured to bond a conductive wire” and “common loader/unloader configured to” in claim 1, “bonding head configured to” in claim 2, “ first bonder configured to” and “second bonder configured to” in claims 5 and 13, “first bonding head configured to” in claims 6 and 14, and “second bonding head configured to” in claims 7 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-9 and 13-17 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 5 recites “a first bonder configured to bond a first article of the conductive wire” and “a second bonder configured to bond a second article of the conductive wire”. It is unclear as to how an article of the same wire can be bonded in both bonders. Note that claim 13 suffers from the same lack of clarity.
Claim 17 recites “a heater block configured to heat the first package substrate and the second package substrate and a window clamp configured to clamp the first package substrate and the second package substrate.” It is unclear as to how a heater block/window clamp can heat/clamp both package substrates. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “a heater block configured to heat the first package substrate or the second package substrate, respectively, and a window clamp configured to clamp the first package substrate or the second package substrate, respectively.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gilchrist et al. (US 2014/0301818 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gilchrist discloses:
A wire bonding apparatus [station (1090); figure 1B], comprising:
a bonder configured [one or more processing stations (1030) may be a wire bonder; 0024 and figure 1B] to bond a conductive wire to a plurality of package substrates; and
a common loader/unloader [transfer robot (1014)] configured to load the plurality of package substrates into the bonder and to unload the plurality of package substrates from the bonder.
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; such as bond a conductive wire, load/unload a plurality of substrates, etc. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Gilchrist discloses:
wherein the bonder comprises:
a first bonder [any number of processing stations may be wire bonders; 0024] configured to bond a first article of the conductive wire to a first package substrate among the plurality of package substrates; and
a second bonder [any number of processing stations may be wire bonders; 0024, so a second wire bonder is a disclosed option] configured to bond a second article of the conductive wire to a second package substrate among the plurality of package substrates.
The following applies should the applicant prove that Gilchrist does not disclose a second wire bonder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place a wire bonder in more than one processing station in order to increase the productivity of a wire bonding procedure; i.e. two wire bonders can do double the work while only needing one transfer robot.
Regarding claim 8, Gilchrist discloses:
wherein the common loader/unloader is between the first bonder and the second bonder [transfer robot (1014) is in the middle of the processing stations; see figure 1B].
Regarding claim 9, Gilchrist is capable of these functions as noted above:
the common loader/unloader [transfer robot (1014)] is configured to
load the first package substrate into the first bonder, and
load the second package substrate into the second bonder, and
the common loader/unloader [transfer robot (1014)] is configured to
unload the first package substrate from the first bonder, and
unload the second package substrate from the second bonder.
Regarding claim 13, Gilchrist discloses:
A wire bonding apparatus [station (1090); figure 1B], comprising:
a first bonder [any number of processing stations (1030) may be wire bonders; 0024] configured to bond a first article of a conductive wire to a first package substrate;
a second bonder [any number of processing stations (1030) may be wire bonders; 0024, so a second wire bonder is a disclosed option] configured to bond a second article of the conductive wire to a second package substrate; and
a common loader/unloader [transfer robot (1014) is in the middle of the processing stations; see figure 1B] between the first bonder and the second bonder, the common loader/unloader configured to
load the first package substrate into the first bonder,
load the second package substrate into the second bonder,
unload the first package substrate from the first bonder, and
unload the second package substrate from the second bonder [note the functional language and material worked upon limitations are addressed above].
The following applies should the applicant prove that Gilchrist does not disclose a second wire bonder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place a wire bonder in more than one processing station in order to increase the productivity of a wire bonding procedure; i.e. two wire bonders can do double the work while only needing one transfer robot.
Regarding claim 16, Gilchrist discloses:
wherein the common loader/unloader comprises a robot [transfer robot (1014)] configured to
load the first package substrate into the first bonder,
load the second package substrate into the second bonder,
unload the first package substrate from the first bonder, and
unload the second package substrate from the second bonder [note the functional language and material worked upon limitations are addressed above].
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 2, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist et al. (US 2014/0301818 A1) as applied to claims 1, 5, and 13 above, and in view of Miyoshi (US 5,699,951).
Regarding claim 2, Gilchrist does not teach:
wherein the bonder comprises:
a bonding rail connected to the common loader/unloader, the bonding rail configured to transfer of the plurality of package substrates; and
a bonding head over the bonding rail, the bonding head configured to bond the conductive wire to of the plurality of package substrates.
Miyoshi teaches a wire bonder comprising bonding device (35), rails (48a,b), bonding stage (32), pushing block/wire clamp (42), and unshown heater block; wherein the bonding device is over the rails; figure 5 and 4:64-65.
Since Gilchrist is silent as to the structure of the wire bonder it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate any known wire bonder(s), including that/those of Miyoshi, in order to perform wire bonding. Note that one would not incorporate the Miyoshi loader (45) and unloader (46) since that function would be performed by the transfer robot. Additionally, the rails are connected to the transfer robot since it is all one apparatus.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 14 and 15, Gilchrist does not teach:
wherein the first bonder comprises:
a first bonding rail configured to transfer the first package substrate; and
a first bonding head over the first bonding rail, the first bonding head configured to bond the first article of the conductive wire to the first package substrate; and
wherein the second bonder comprises:
a second bonding rail configured to transfer the second package substrate; and
a second bonding head over the second bonding rail, the second bonding head configured to bond the second article of the conductive wire to the second package substrate.
Since a Miyoshi wire bonder is incorporated for each wire bonder a first and second incorporated wire bonder would meet these claims.
Regarding claim 12, Gilchrist does not teach:
wherein the bonder comprises:
a heater block configured to heat each package substrate of the plurality of package substrates; and
a window clamp configured to clamp each package substrate of the plurality of package substrates.
However, the incorporation of the Miyoshi wire bonder(s), as noted in the rejection of claim 2, would meet this claim.
Regarding claim 17, Gilchrist does not teach:
wherein each of the first bonder and second bonder comprises:
a heater block configured to heat the first package substrate and the second package substrate; and
a window clamp configured to clamp the first package substrate and the second package substrate.
However, the incorporation of the Miyoshi wire bonder(s), as noted in the rejection of claim 2, for a first and second wire bonder would meet this claim.
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