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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 51-53, 55, 59-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR20200126447A from IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a wire bonding system comprising: a bond head assembly 1 configured to carry a wire bonding tool; and a wire replacement system 20 (figure 3) (see description of figure 3), wherein the wire replacement system includes a clamping mechanism 25 (figures 13-15). The wire replacement system clamping mechanism 25 moves in the x, y, z directions (see description of figures). The clamp mechanism 25, of the system 20, clamps both the wire and the wire bonding tool (figures 13-15). Since the wire replacement system is capable of clamping the wire and the wire bonding tool and can move in the x, y, and z directions, it is the Examiner’s position that the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function “to (i) remove a wire portion engaged with the wire bonding tool, the wire portion being part of a wire supply on the wire bonding system, and (ii) replace the wire portion to be engaged with the wire bonding tool, wherein the wire replacement system includes a clamping mechanism configured (a) for removing wire from the wire bonding tool and for replacing wire and (b) for clamping the wire bonding tool to remove the wire bonding tool from the bond head assembly”. There are no structural differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses that the bond head assembly includes a wire clamp 60, wherein the clamping mechanism 25 configured to clamp wire (figure 13). It is the Examiner’s position that the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function “wherein the clamping mechanism operates in connection with movements relative to the bond head assembly and opening and closing of the wire clamp to (i) remove the wire portion from the wire bonding tool and (ii) replace the wire portion through the wire bonding tool”. There are no structural differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses that the clamping mechanism 25 includes (i) a fixed clamp portion 28 and (ii) a moving clamp portion 251 disposed adjacent the fixed clamp portion, the moving clamp portion being configured to move with respect to the fixed clamp portion in at least one direction (figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses that the clamping mechanism 25 includes a threading portion 253 for threading wire (figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the wire replacement system is configured to remove and replace the wire bonding tool from the bond head assembly” is functional and does not provide any structural limitation that differentiates from the prior art. it is the Examiner’s position that the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the wire replacement system is configured to replace the wire portion by re-engaging the wire portion with the wire bonding tool or another wire bonding tool” is functional and does not provide any structural limitation that differentiates from the prior art. it is the Examiner’s position that the apparatus.
Regarding claim 51, Lee discloses that the clamping mechanism is carried by a moveable arm assembly 221 (description of figure 3).
Regarding claim 52, Lee discloses that the clamping mechanism 25 includes a gripping portion 252b for gripping wire, a cutting portion 252a for partially cutting wire, and a threading portion 253 for threading wire (figure 4).
Regarding claim 53, Lee discloses that the clamping mechanism includes a tool clamping portion 254 for clamping the wire bonding tool (figure 4).
Regarding claim 55, since Lee discloses the structural limitations with the wire replacement system having a claimed that can move in x, y, z directions, it is the Examiner’s position that Lee is capable to replace the wire portion by engaging another wire portion with the wire bonding tool or another wire bonding tool.
Regarding claim 59, Lee discloses that the wire replacement system 20 is removably installed on the wire bonding system (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 60, Lee discloses that the wire replacement system clamp 25 can be moved in the x, y, z direction. Therefore, the system would be capable of being moved between a plurality of wire bonding systems.
Regarding claim 61, Lee discloses that the clamping mechanism 20 is carried by a moveable arm assembly (shown in figure 2), wherein the moveable arm assembly is configured to move the clamping mechanism independent of the bond head assembly (can move in x, y, z directions).
Claim(s) 14-15, 57-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20200126447A from IDS) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Senba et al. (2003/0085256A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses that the clamping mechanism 25 configured to clamp wire, but does not disclose that the clamping mechanism includes an image registration feature, the image registration feature providing a reference for determining a position of the clamping mechanism. However, Senba discloses a wire bonding system with a clamper 3 and a camera 5 wherein the camera is used to monitor the bonding tool, bonding pads, clamper, holder, and wire (paragraph 0040-0045). Any part of the tool that is being monitored by the camera would be considered a “registration feature”. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a camera to monitor the clamper (registration feature) to ensure that it is properly clamping the wire at the desired times to prevent an incorrect bond from being formed.
Regarding claim 15, since Senba discloses a camera 5 for monitoring position of the clamper 3 by collecting images of the registration feature (clamper). Since there is a camera, it is the Examiner’s position that there would be a vision system to view the images.
Regarding claims 57, 58, Senba discloses using a camera. Cameras are known to mostly refract light, with a small about being reflected (due to glass not being perfectly transparent). Therefore, the camera of Senba would be considered a reflective and refractive optical element.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20200126447A from IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diepeveen (3,672,556).
Regarding claim 50, Lee does not disclose that the clamping mechanism includes a spring configured to actuate the moving clamp portion with respect to the fixed clamp portion. However, Diepeveen discloses a clamping mechanism (figure 1) for wire bonding wherein the clamp uses a spring 18 so that the jaws will move relative to each other (column 2 lines 4-11). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known spring in order to actuate the jaws to ensure that pressure is consistently applied.
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20200126447A from IDS) as applied to claims 1, 9 above.
Regarding claim 54, Lee does not disclose a wire bonding tool source configured to provide a plurality of wire bonding tools, the wire replacement system being configured to replace the wire bonding tool at the bond head assembly with one of the plurality of wire bonding tools from the wire bonding tool source. However, this is a design choice a user can make for multiplied effect. To one skilled in the art at the invention it would have been obvious to use multiple wire bonding tools to allow for a plurality of bonds to be completed at the same time which could cut down on production costs and time.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20200126447A from IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pirkle et al. (WO2010042117A1)
Regarding claim 56, Lee does not specifically disclose a receptacle for receiving the wire portion after it is removed by the wire replacement system. However, Pirkle discloses a receptacle (spool) (description on figure 2). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have a spool (receptacle) for receiving the wire portion because spools are common for holding the wire during wire bonding. Spools allow a large amount of wire to be used with the apparatus before needing to be replaced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 14-15, 50-61 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided above.
Conclusion
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 ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735