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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uno et al. (2009/0188696).
Uno et al. discloses a bonding wire for semiconductor devices, the bonding wire (Table 7, Ex. 46) comprising: a core material of Cu or Cu alloy; and a coating layer (surface covering layer) containing conductive metal other than Cu formed on a surface of the core material, wherein the coating layer has a region (concentration of intermediate layer) containing Ni as a main component on a core material side, and has a region containing Au and Ni on a wire surface side, in a thickness direction of the coating layer, a thickness of the coating layer is 10 nm or more and 130 nm or less (0.02 µm = 20 nm), a ratio CAu/CNi of a concentration CAu (mass%) of Au to a concentration CNi (mass%) of Ni relative to the entire wire is 0.02 or more and 0.7 or less (Ex. 46, at most surface Au:85 & Ni:15; at near surface Au:32 & Ni:68; and at intermediate layer Au:0 & Ni:100 => for entire wire, total Au=85+32=117 and total Ni=15+68+100=173 => 117/173 = 0.17), and a concentration of Au at the surface of the wire is 10 atomic% or more and 90 atomic% or less (85%) (re-claim 1).
Re-claims 2 and 6-7, it has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Re-claim 3, Uno et al. discloses the coating layer further contains Pd as conductive metal other than Cu ([0063]).
Re-claim 5, Uno et al. discloses the maximum concentration of Ni being 80 atomic% or more in a concentration profile in a depth direction of the wire (Table 7, Ex. 46, 100%).
Re-claim 9, Uno et al. discloses the thickness of the coating layer being 18 nm or more (Ex. 46, 20 nm).
Re-claim 13, Uno et al. discloses a semiconductor device comprising the bonding wire according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno et al. in view of Yamada et al. (2017/0200689).
Re-claim 8, Yamada et al. discloses a bonding wire, wherein the proportion of the crystal orientation <100> angled at 15° or less to the compression-bonding direction is 50% or more ([0016]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teaching of Yamada et al. in the bonding wire of Uno et al. to meet the required strength of the wire.
Re-claim 11, Yamada et al. discloses the bonding wire containing one or more of Te, As, and Sb with a total concentration of 1 ppm by mass or more and 100 ppm by mass or less relative to the entire wire ([0032]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add Te, As, or Sb in the bonding wire of Uno et al. to improve the bonding longevity of the ball bonded part as taught by Yamada et al.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno et al. in view of KR-100702662 (KR’662).
Claims 10 and 12 additionally recite the bonding wire containing 1 ppm by mass or more and 100 ppm by mass or less of P; and 0.011% by mass or more and 1.5% by mass or less of Ga. KR’662 discloses a bonding wire (page 2 of the machine English translation, first aspect) containing P in an amount of 1 ppm by mass or more and 100 ppm by mass or less and 0.011% by mass or more and 1.5% by mass or less of Ga. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add element P or Ga, as taught by KR’662, in the bonding wire of Uno et al. to improve the bonding reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841