DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 15, 2026 has been entered. Applicant' s amendment to the title of the specification has overcome the objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 18, 2026, and the objection is withdrawn.
Claims 1-14, and newly added claims 15-17 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9 of Remarks , filed May 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3, 5, and 6 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and of claims 4, and 7-14 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered in view of the Amendment and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly identified prior art in combination with previously cited references. Please see the updated rejections below.
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, 5-6, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada; Mitsuo et al. (US 2022/0122937; hereinafter Takada) in view of Islam; Shafidul et al. (US 2007/0161157; hereinafter Islam).
Regarding claim 1, Takada discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor element (2; Fig 2; ¶ [0091]);
a first lead (one of 4; Fig 2; ¶ [0091]) electrically connected to the semiconductor element; and
a connecting member (one of bonding wires 5; Fig 2; ¶ [0091]); connected to the semiconductor element and the first lead, wherein
the connecting member includes a core (copper core material; ¶ [0049]) containing a first material (copper {Cu} alloy; ¶ [0092,0049]) and a surface layer (palladium {Pd} layer; ¶ [0058]), the surface layer covering the core and containing a first metal (Pd),
the first material includes an alloy in which at least a third metal (platinum {Pt}, for example {Table 1, example 12}, from among a group disclosed to be preferably selected from; ¶ [0051-53]) is added to a second metal (Cu; ¶ [0049]) and has a higher corrosion resistance than the second metal (it is known in the art {and disclosed by the Applicant} that Pt has a higher corrosion resistance than Cu), and
the third metal has a highest proportion among the metals added (in Table 1, example 12, at least, has Pt as the third metal in a highest proportion among added metals, being the only metal added to the core in the example) and has an atomic number greater than the second metal (The atomic number of Pt is 78, and of Cu is 29, as is readily known by consulting a Periodic Table. )
Takada does not disclose the connecting member includes a main portion and an end portion, the end portion including a tapered section connected to the main portion, and the tapered section decreases in dimension in a thickness direction of the semiconductor element as proceeding away from the main portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Islam discloses a semiconductor device comprising a connecting member (bond wire 18; Figs {3,26a-26e}, 27-28; ¶ [0071-74]; see the included Fig 28 below) and a wedge bonding method, wherein the connecting member includes a main portion (the portion away from the end portion, the full diameter portion of bond wire 18 on a side opposite 220 from 224) and an end portion (the portion shown in Figs 27-28, comprising the wedge bond region 200 and adjacent rejections deformed from original state by the wedge bonding process described), the end portion including a tapered section (the section shown in Figs 27-28 on a side opposite of 220 from 224) connected to the main portion, and the tapered section decreases in dimension in a thickness direction of the semiconductor element as proceeding away from the main portion (as shown in Figs 27-28, there is a transitional tapered section between a full wire diameter main portion and a flattened portion 220; ¶ [0077]).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the connecting member of Takada may have similar configuration as that disclosed by Islam from the wedge bonding method. One may have come to this conclusion because Takada discloses that the connecting member 5 is connected to the first lead 4 by wedge bonding (Takada; ¶ [0094]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because wedge bonding is well-known method in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the second metal is Cu (as applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the third metal is Pt (as applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first metal is Pd (as applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the connecting member is a wire (as applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the end portion of the connecting member further includes a tip (224; Figs 27-28; ¶ [0077-78]; see the annotated Fig 28 below) connected to an end of the tapered section (by 220; Fig 28), wherein the tip and the tapered section are spaced apart from each other (by 220; Fig 28).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takada in view of Islam does not disclose the tip includes a first part of the core and the tapered section includes a second part of the core, the first part and the second part both being covered by the surface layer, and the first part of the core and the second part of the core are spaced apart from each other; however, this would have been obvious as applied to claim 1 for the following reasons: The structure of the connection member is established by Takada as applied to claim 1. In view of the wedge bonding process disclosed by Islam, and Figs 27-28, it would have been obvious that the connection member having the established structure would be deformed by the wedge bonding process in similar fashion to Figs 27-28 and associated description of Islam, satisfying the further limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 16, wherein the tip protrudes from the end of the tapered section in the thickness direction (the end of the tapered section abutting the flattened region 220 has a reduced thickness as compared to the wire diameter at the opposite end of the tapered section; the tip 224 protrudes to greater thickness at the opposite end of the 220, as shown in Fig 28 (see the included figure under claim 16).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada; Mitsuo et al. (US 2022/0122937; hereinafter Takada) in view of Islam; Shafidul et al. (US 2007/0161157; hereinafter Islam) and further in view of Matsuura; Masamitsu (US 2023/0068748; hereinafter Matsuura).
Regarding claim 4, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a Pd coating is added to a copper wire to prevent oxidation (¶ [0005]).
Takada in view of Islam does not specifically disclose wherein the first metal (Pd) has a greater bonding strength to the first lead than the first material (Cu alloy).
In the same field of endeavor, Matsuura discloses that a palladium plating is added to a copper bonding pad to improve bond strength of the bonding pad to a wire. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that Pd has a greater bonding strength to a lead than Cu, and that the Pd coating added to the copper wire as disclosed by in view of Islam would have the same property.
Claims 7-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada; Mitsuo et al. (US 2022/0122937; hereinafter Takada) in view of Islam; Shafidul et al. (US 2007/0161157; hereinafter Islam) and further in view of Jeon; Oseob et al. (US 2007/0001278 A1; hereinafter Jeon) and Otremba; Ralf et al. (US 2016/0293549; hereinafter Otremba).
Regarding claim 7, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising: a second semiconductor element; a second lead electrically connected to the second semiconductor element; and a second connecting member connected to the second semiconductor element and the second lead and configured such that a current flowing therein is smaller than a current flowing in the connecting member, wherein the second connecting member consists solely of a second core containing a second material.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeon discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor element (power transistor 606; Figs 24A-24C; ¶ [0323-324]), a first lead (source lead 610a; Figs 24B-24C; ¶ [0328]), and a connecting member (one of source wires 616a; Figs 24B-24C; ¶ [0328]);
a second semiconductor element (control IC 604; Figs 24A-24C; ¶ [0314,0323-324]); a second lead (control lead 610b; Figs 24B-24C; ¶ [0330]) electrically connected to the second semiconductor element; and a second connecting member (one of bonding wires 616(e); Figs 24B-24C; ¶ [0330]) connected to the second semiconductor element, wherein Jeon discloses the bonding wires may be formed of a metal such as copper and may be, for example, coated copper (¶ [0123]), but not disclose further structural detail of the bonding wires.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the disclosures of Takada in view of Islam discloses with that of Jeon. One would have been motivated to do this in order to include the palladium-coated copper alloy bonding wire of Takada, which can maintain bonding reliability in-high temperature and high-humidity environments (Takada; ¶ [0012]), in the semiconductor device of Jeon having more than one semiconductor element. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the materials of Takada are consistent with those disclosed by Otremba in the similar endeavor.
Takada in view of Islam and Jeon do not disclose the second connecting member is configured such that a current flowing therein is smaller than a current flowing in the connecting member, wherein the second connecting member consists solely of a second core containing a second material.
In the same field of endeavor, Otremba discloses a semiconductor device comprising a wire (including, for example copper alloy, that may or may not include a coating; ¶ [0046]) that may be configured (smaller thickness / diameter) such that a current flowing therein is smaller than a current flowing through another wire (¶ [0046]) due to different current requirements for a gate electrode (smaller current) as compared to a source electrode (larger current). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the disclosures of Otremba with that of Takada in view of Islam and Jeon and configured the connecting member and second connecting member for the case where the semiconductor element includes different leads having different current carrying requirements, such as may be the case of the control lead 610b of Jeon used for the control IC as compared to the source lead 610a used for the power transistor 606. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similarity in devices and materials disclosed by each of Takada, Jeon and Otremba.
Takada in view of Islam, Jeon and Otremba does not disclose the second connecting member consists solely of a second core containing a second material. However, both Otremba and Jeon disclose that the wire(s) may or may not have a coating (that is, a surface layer, similar to that disclosed by Takada). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having chosen to use connecting members with different configurations (bonding wires having different thickness / diameter) to have used for the second, less demanding (lower current, smaller diameter) connecting member a second material that does not have the Pd coating of Takada. One may have been motivated to do this in order to reduce the cost of the second connecting member by eliminating the expensive Pd, and reserving the more expensive connecting members for the connections that most require or benefit from them. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because uncoated bonding wire is well-known in the art, disclosed by both each of Otremba and Jeon, and because it is common to consider and trade off a variety factors including cost, performance, and reliability.
Regarding claim 8, Takada in view of Islam, and further in view of Jeon and Otremba discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 7, wherein the semiconductor element is a transistor (power transistor 606, as applied to claim 7), and the second semiconductor element is a driver IC (control IC 604, as applied to claim 7) that drives and controls the transistor.
Regarding claim 11, Takada in view of Islam, and further in view of Jeon and Otremba discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the second material consists solely of the second metal (Takada; Cu, as applied to claim 1) to which no other metals are added. However, each of Takeda (¶ [0005], examples 1-11 of Table 1), Jeon (¶ [0123]) and Otremba (¶ [0046]) disclose a copper core to which no other metals are added. One may have been motivated to use Cu to which no other metals are added in order to further reduce the cost of the second connecting member by eliminating the expensive Pt, it being known at the time of the invention that both Pd and Pt were significantly more expensive than Cu, and reserving the more expensive connecting members for the connections that most require or benefit from them. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Cu bonding wire is well known in the art, and because it is common to consider and trade off a variety factors including cost, performance, and reliability.
Regarding claim 12, Takada in view of Islam and further in view of Jeon and Otremba discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the second material contains a fourth metal having a higher electrical resistivity than the second metal. However, Takada discloses that one of the following metals is preferably added to the copper core material to improve bonding reliability: Au, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ni, In, and Ga (Takada; ¶ [0051]), and each of the listed materials has a higher resistivity than Cu (as is readily known by consulting a material properties reference). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added one of the listed metals to Cu to form the second material, satisfying the limitation of claim 12. One would have been motivated to do this, with a reasonable expectation of success, because of Takada’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 13, Takada in view Islam and further in view of Jeon and Otremba discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 12, but does not specifically disclose wherein the fourth metal is Au. However, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen Au from Takada’s list of preferred metals to add to the Cu core. One may have been motivated to do this because Au has the lowest resistivity of any of the materials on the list (as is readily known by consulting a material properties reference), thereby enabling one to maintain a resistance of the connecting member closest to that of Cu to which no metals are added, while improving bonding reliability (as explained for claim 12.) One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of Takada’s disclosure.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada; Mitsuo et al. (US 2022/0122937; hereinafter Takada) in view of Islam; Shafidul et al. (US 2007/0161157; hereinafter Islam) and further in view of Otremba; Ralf et al. (US 2016/0293549; hereinafter Otremba).
Regarding claim 9, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second lead (another of 4; Fig 2; ¶ [0091]) electrically connected to the semiconductor element; and
a second connecting member (another of 5; Fig 2; ¶ [0091]) connected to the semiconductor element (2; Fig 2) and the second lead.
Takada is view of Islam does not disclose the second connecting member is configured such that a current flowing therein is smaller than a current flowing in the connecting member, wherein the second connecting member consists solely of a second core containing a second material.
In the same field of endeavor, Otremba discloses a similar semiconductor device comprising a wire (including, for example copper alloy, that may or may not include a coating; ¶ [0046]) that may be configured (smaller thickness / diameter) such that a current flowing therein is smaller than a current flowing through another wire (¶ [0046]) due to different current requirements for a gate electrode (smaller current) as compared to a source electrode (larger current). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the disclosures of Otremba with that of Takada and configured the connecting member and second connecting member of Takada for the case where the semiconductor element includes different leads having different current carrying requirements. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similarity in devices and materials disclosed by each of Takada and Otremba.
Neither Takada in view of Islam nor Otremba discloses the second connecting member consists solely of a second core containing a second material. However, Otremba discloses that the wire(s) may or may not have a coating (that is, a surface layer, similar to that disclosed by Takada). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having chosen to use connecting members with different configurations (bonding wires having different thickness / diameter) to have used for the second, less demanding (lower current, smaller diameter) connecting member a second material that does not have the Pd coating of Takada. One may have been motivated to do this in order to reduce the cost of the second connecting member by eliminating the expensive Pd, and reserving the more expensive connecting members for the connections that most require or benefit from them. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because uncoated bonding wire is well-known in the art, is disclosed Otremba, and because it is common to consider and trade off a variety factors including cost, performance, and reliability.
Regarding claim 10, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the semiconductor element is a transistor.
In the same field of endeavor, Otremba discloses a similar semiconductor device comprising a transistor (having a gate and a source; ¶ [0046]; for example a HEMT, high electron mobility transistor; ¶ [0047-48]), but does not disclose material construction details of its bonding wires (¶ [0046]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have combined the disclosure of Takada with that of Otremba. One would have been motivated to do this in order to include the palladium-coated copper alloy bonding wire of Takada which can maintain bonding reliability in-high temperature and high-humidity environments (Takada; ¶ [0012]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the materials of Takada in view of Islam are consistent with those disclosed by Otremba in the similar endeavor.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada; Mitsuo et al. (US 2022/0122937; hereinafter Takada) in view of Islam; Shafidul et al. (US 2007/0161157; hereinafter Islam) and further in view of Oda Taizo et al. (JP 2018/078229; hereinafter Oda).
Regarding claim 14, Takada in view of Islam discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprising a resin member (encapsulated in a commercially available resin; ¶ [0131,0137]) covering the connecting member.
Takada in view of Islam does not disclose the resin member has a sulfur content of 5 ppm or more.
In the same field of endeavor Oda discloses a bonding wire for semiconductor device wherein the bonding wire undergoes a HAST evaluation similar to that of Takada (¶ [0132-138]) and is encapsulated in a “low-concentration sulfur containing resin” having sulfur content of 2ppm and in a “high-concentration sulfur containing resin” having sulfur content of 16 ppm, comprising a range of sulfur content from 2-16 ppm, overlapping the claimed range of greater than 5 ppm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that sulfur content of the resin of Takada may be greater than 5 ppm, due to Oda’s disclosure and since such sulfur content is common in resin encapsulants the art.
Regarding claim 15, Takada in view of Islam and further in view of Oda discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the sulfur content in the resin member is not greater than 50 ppm. However, this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as applied to claim 14 because Oda’s disclosed range of 2-16 ppm, comprises a “low-concentration” of 2 ppm and a “high-concentration” of 16 ppm as stated by Oda, which at least implies a sulfur content in the resin member not greater than 50 ppm. The Examiner considers that a prima facie case of obviousness is established by the range 2-16 ppm overlapping the claimed range of 5-50 ppm of claims 14-15. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasuda; Yoshihiro (US 10483179; the prior art discloses a semiconductor device comprising a resin member covering a connecting member wherein the resin composition contains no sulfur in excess of 50 ppm);
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 BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights