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 without traverse of group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-5 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.
The term “goodness” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “goodness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What determines if the bond is good or not? Is there a specific value that must be achieved? There are no values or ranges associated with the goodness of the bond, so it is unclear what determines if the bond is good. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the detected value being prescribed”. Prescribed means “fixed” or “set down as a rule or guide”. How is the detected value “fixed”? The detected value is a measurement that is determined during the bonding. How can this value be fixed? Wouldn’t this value vary based on the bonding process? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “when the bonding tool is lowered most in the bonding process”. What is meant by ‘most’? Is it most amount of times? Is it the lowest point? Is it the lowest rate of movement? What is meant by “lowered most” and the Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation. For the purpose of examination, it will be understood to be the lowest point during bonding.
The term “goodness” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “goodness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What determines if the bond has goodness? Is there a specific value that must be achieved? There are no values or ranges associated with the goodness of the bond, so it is unclear what determines if the bond would meet this limitation. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the detected value being prescribed”. Prescribed means “fixed” or “set down as a rule or guide”. How is the detected value “fixed”? The detected value is a measurement that is determined during the bonding. How can this value be fixed? Wouldn’t this value vary based on the bonding process? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
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) 1-2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wildner (2003/0019098A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wildner discloses a wire bonding apparatus, comprising: a bonding tool 26 configured to feed a wire 20; a driver configured to drive the bonding tool (necessarily would have to be present to move the bonding tool) ; and a controller (paragraphs 0005-0006) configured to control the bonding tool and the driver, the controller performing at least a bonding process of causing a ball 34 formed at a tip of the wire to contact a first bonding point (figure 1b, paragraph 0014), deforming the ball into a bump, and bonding the bump to the first bonding point (figure 1c, paragraph 0014), and a lowering process of raising the bonding tool while the bonding tool holds the wire connected with the bump, changing a position of the bonding tool in a horizontal direction, and subsequently lowering the bonding tool toward the first bonding point (figure 1d-f), the controller determining a goodness of the bonding of the bump to the first bonding point based on a detected value detected in the lowering process (through the automatic visual inspection device), the detected value being prescribed (paragraphs 0005-0006, 0016-0017).
Regarding claim 2, Wildner discloses wherein the detected value includes at least one selected from: a position of the bonding tool when a prescribed load is applied to the bonding tool in the lowering process; a position of the bonding tool when a lowering rate of the bonding tool changes to be not more than a prescribed value in the lowering process; a load on the bonding tool when the bonding tool is lowered to a prescribed position in the lowering process; and a period from a start of the lowering process until a prescribed load is applied to the bonding tool (paragraphs 0005-0006, 0017).
Regarding claim 5, Wildner discloses a control device configured to control a wire bonding apparatus, the wire bonding apparatus including: a bonding tool 26 configured to feed a wire 20; and a driver driving the bonding tool (necessarily would be present), the control device being configured to cause the wire bonding apparatus to perform at least: a bonding process of causing a ball 34 formed at a tip of the wire to contact a first bonding point (figure 1b), deforming the ball into a bump (figure 1c), and bonding the bump to the first bonding point (figure 1c); and a lowering process of raising the bonding tool while the bonding tool holds the wire connected with the bump, changing a position of the bonding tool in a horizontal direction, and subsequently lowering the bonding tool toward the first bonding point (figures 1d-f), the control device determining a goodness of the bonding of the bump to the first bonding point based on a detected value detected in the lowering process (through the automatic visual inspection device), the detected value being prescribed (paragraphs 0005-0006, 0012-0017)
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildner (2003/0019098A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoyagi et al. (2011/0146408A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wildner discloses measuring the contact after bonding, but does not specifically state that in the case where the bonding of the bump is determined to be good, the controller performs at least a first bonding process of moving the bonding tool above a second bonding point, lowering the bonding tool with a ball formed at the tip of the wire, and causing the ball to contact the second bonding point, and in the case where the bonding of the bump is determined to be defective, the controller does not perform the first bonding process. However, Aoyagi discloses a wire bonding process with a controller that detects a defective bond and stops the process if a defective bond is determined (paragraphs 0043-0053). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention that if it is determined that the bond is not good the bonding process would stop and not continue. The purpose of measuring is to ensure that the bond is reliable. If it isn’t reliable, it would not make sense to continue on because then the entire component would be compromised. Furthermore, if the bond is good, it would make sense to continue on to finish performing other necessary bonds on the component to keep up with production.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested wherein the controller acquires a first position when the bonding tool is lowered most (lowest point during bonding) in the bonding process, the detected value includes a second position of the bonding tool when a prescribed load is applied to the bonding tool in the lowering process, and the controller determines that the bonding of the bump is defective in the case where a difference between the first position and the second position is less than a preset threshold.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights