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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding claims 1, 16, and 22;
regarding claim 27, the office action has been updated to address the newly amended limitations.
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.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wityak et al (U.S. Pub #2014/0001624), in view of Martin (U.S. Pub #2017/0062295), in view of Goto et al (U.S. Pub #2021/0002769), in view of Koba (U.S. Pub #2017/0323837), in view of Ozard (U.S. Patent #10600718).
With respect to claim 27, Wityak teaches a flange (Fig. 2, 12) comprising a composite core material, the composite core material comprising diamond particles distributed in metal (Paragraph 21);
a frame (Fig. 2, 16) connected to the flange;
at least one conductive lead (Fig. 2, 20).
Wityak teaches that the frame is brazed (Paragraph 19) to the top surface of the flange, but does not teach that the frame is ceramic.
Koba teaches a ceramic frame (Fig. 1, 130 and Paragraph 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the frame of Wityak from ceramic as taught by Koba in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a dielectric frame.
Wityak does not teach that the at least one conductive lead comprises gold plating. Martin teaches a conductive lead that comprises gold plating (Paragraph 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to plate the conductive lead of Witak with gold as taught by Martin in order to achieve the predicable result of a conductive lead having improved mechanical and/or electrical performance (Paragraph 25).
Wityak teaches a first metal layer (Fig. 2, top portion of 24 and Paragraph 22) over a top of the composite core material and a second metal layer (Fig. 2, bottom portion of 24) over a bottom of the composite core material and form the top surface and the bottom surface of the flange;
but does not teach a first plating metal layer and a second plating metal layer, each of the first plating metal layer and the second plating metal layer having a thickness to planarize edges of the synthetic diamond particles in the composite core material;
Martin teaches that a flange can be plated with a metal layer (Paragraph 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to plate the metal of Wityak on the flange as taught by Martin in order to improve the mechanical or electrical properties of the package (Paragraph 25).
Goto teaches that a plating metal layer (Fig. 1, 43; Paragraph 115 and 153) can be formed to a thickness to planarize edges of diamond particles (Fig. 1, 20) in a composite core material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the plating metal layers of Wityak/Martin to have a thickness as taught by Goto in order to form the flange to have a smooth surface (Paragraph 40, 42, and 134-136).
Wityak does not teach wherein the flange has a thermal conductivity greater than 700 W/m-K and a coefficient of thermal expansion in a range of 5-10 ppm/°C.
Abyzov teaches a material for use as a heat sink or heat spreader, comprising diamond particles in a metal matrix (Paragraph 103-104), wherein the material has a coefficient of thermal expansion in a range of 6-9 ppm/°C (Paragraph 138, 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the material used for flange of Wityak to have a thermal conductivity and thermal expansion as taught by Abyzov in order to achieve the predictable result of forming a heat sink having high thermal conductivity (Paragraph 3 and 103, etc.) and compatibility with semiconductor device materials (Paragraph 144).
Wityak does not teach
a group of semiconductor device die that operate collectively as a single common source transistor amplifier positioned over the planar top surface of the flange, a source of the single common source transistor amplifier being electrically coupled to the planar top surface of the flange.
Ozard teaches
a group of semiconductor device die that operate collectively as a single common source transistor amplifier (Fig. 6 and Col 5 Ln 63 – Col Ln 3) positioned over the planar top surface of a flange, a source of the single common source transistor amplifier being electrically coupled to the planar top surface of the flange (Fig. 3A, 310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to configure the semiconductor die of Wityak as a single common source transistor amplifier as taught by Ozard in order to implement a two stage common source RF amplifier (Col 4 Ln 6-9 and Col 5 Ln 63 – Col Ln 3).
With respect to claim 29, Wityak does not teach that the frame is secured to a top surface of the using at least one mechanical interlock, interference, or fastener.
Martin teaches that the frame is secured to a top surface of the flange using a mechanical interlock (Paragraph 34 and 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to secure the frame to the flange of Wityak using a mechanical interlock as taught by Martin in order to fix and secure the conductive leads, frame, and flange (Paragraph 34 and 37).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wityak, Martin, Goto, Koba, and Ozard, in view of Hayashi et al (U.S. Pub #2019/0355656).
With respect to claim 28, Wityak does not teach that a central portion of the top surface of the flange is smooth and the periphery of the top surface of the flange is selectively plated for roughness.
Hayashi teaches that a central portion of the top surface of a flange is smooth and the periphery of the top surface of the flange is selectively plated for roughness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to selectively plate the periphery of the flange of Wityak as taught by Hayashi in order to increase the adherence of the flange to an adhesive (Paragraph 123).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-11, 15-17, and 19-24 are allowed.
Claim 30 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.
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 BENJAMIN P SANDVIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)-272-1945. 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.
/BENJAMIN P SANDVIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812