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 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 § 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, 2, 5-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi (US 5,699,951) in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2022/0320034 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyoshi teaches:
A wire bonding apparatus [wire bonder; front page], comprising:
a bonder [wire bonding device (35)] configured to bond a conductive wire to a plurality of package substrates;
a loader [loader (45)] configured to
load the plurality of package substrates into the bonder on a bonding rail [rail (48b); is over the rail] in a first direction [left to right on the front page]
an unloader configured [unloader (46)] to
unload the plurality of package substrates from the bonder on the bonding rail in the first direction [see front page];
processing circuitry [CPU (111); figure 17] configured to cause the common loader and unloader to move the plurality of package substrates in the second direction during a bonding operation of the plurality of package substrates [The CPU configured to cause the wire bonder to load a first workpiece onto the rail, position the workpiece, wire bond the workpiece, unload the workpiece from the rail, and then repeat the process; i.e. perform the bonding operation, 10:42-12-6. Note a bonding operation is interpreted as being from the time a first workpiece is loaded and unloaded or from the time first workpiece is loaded till the last workpiece is unloaded.].
Miyoshi does not teach:
a common loader/unloader configured to
load the plurality of package substrates in a first direction, and
unload the plurality of package substrates in a second direction, the second direction being opposite to the first direction; and
processing circuitry configured to cause the common loader/unloader to move the plurality of package substrates in the second direction.
Hayashi teaches mounting apparatus (10) that comprises transfer apparatus (12) placed between opposing bonding apparatuses (14a, 14f) in order to save space and cost, wherein the transfer apparatus comprises load ports (26) for storing unprocessed/processed workpieces and transfer robot (28) for loading/unloading the workpieces onto bonding stages (22a, 22f) and wherein the loading and unloading would be along the same path but in opposite directions; 0049-0056 and figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Hayashi transfer apparatus concept into Miyoshi in order to double the bonding capability by having a second wire bonder while saving on the cost by using a single apparatus for loading and unloading both wire bonders.
In doing so, there would be first and second wire bonders with each comprising bonding device (35), horn (61) over rails (48a,b), bonding stage (32), pushing block/wire clamp (42), and unshown heater block; see Miyoshi figure 5 and 4:64-65 for these components. Additionally, the transfer apparatus (12) would be placed between the first and second wire bonders so that they are connected to the transfer unit on opposing sides, which would allow the transfer apparatus to load/unload workpieces on/from the rails. Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure one of the wire bonders’ CPUs in order to control the loading/unloading of the transfer device.
Regarding claim 2, Miyoshi teaches:
wherein the bonder comprises:
a bonding head over the bonding rail [see front page], the bonding head configured to bond the conductive wire to the plurality of package substrates [4:50-57], and
the bonding rail configured to transfer the plurality of package substrates [see front page].
Miyoshi does not teach:
the bonding rail connected to the common loader/unloader,
Note that incorporating Hayashi meets this limitation as the rails are connected to the transfer apparatus since each section is part of the larger apparatus.
Regarding claims 5-9 and 12-17, the incorporation of Hayashi addresses these claims as noted in the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“In the instant application, even a cursory review of the Specification would unequivocally inform one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed "bonder," "common loader/unloader" and "bonding head" denote structure. Paragraphs [0035]-[0037] and [0041]-[0042], for example, of the specification as originally filed provide a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that these terms denote structure.”
These paragraphs do not inform one of ordinary skill in the art that these words donate a specific structure, instead they tell the reader what the structure may be. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these words encompass many different types of bonders, loader/unloaders, and bonding heads.
The remainder of the applicant’s arguments with respect to 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.
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