DETAILED ACTION
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bechtel et al. (US 5,182,632; hereinafter “Bechtel”).
Regarding claim 22, Bechtel teaches a multi-cavity package, comprising: a single metal flange having first and second opposing main surfaces (a heatsink 104 formed of metal having top and bottom main surfaces) (Fig. 3A and cols. 6-7); and a dielectric material (an interconnect structure 114 including a dielectric material) attached to the first main surface of the single metal flange (Fig. 3A and cols. 6-7); wherein the dielectric material comprises a main portion (a center portion of 114 including apertures 116), a lateral extension protruding out from the main portion (a lateral left-side portion of 114 including left-side corners 88 protruding out from the center portion of 114) and a further lateral extension protruding out from the main portion away from the lateral extension (a lateral right-side portion of 114 including right-side corners 88 protruding out from the center portion of 114) (Fig. 3A and col. 6); and wherein the main portion comprises: a first surface facing the single metal flange (a bottom surface of 114 facing 104) (Fig. 3A); a second surface facing away from the first surface (a top surface of 114 facing away from 104) (Fig. 3A); and a plurality of openings exposing respective regions of the first main surface of the single metal flange (apertures 116 exposing regions of 104A for placing 110A-110D therein) (Fig. 3A and col. 6).
Regarding claim 23, Bechtel teaches further comprising a metal trace (a portion of metallization 202 and/or 210 on the top surface of 114) disposed on the second surface of the single dielectric material and configured to provide an input or output electrical pathway for the region of the first main surface exposed by one of the openings (202 and/or 210 providing input/output to and from the chips 110A-110D with wirings 118) (Figs. 3A-3C and cols. 6-8).
Regarding claim 24, Bechtel teaches further comprising a semiconductor die (one of 110A-110D) and a further semiconductor die (another one of 110A-110D) disposed in respective ones of the openings and attached to the first main surface of the single metal flange (Figs. 3A-3C and col. 6).
Regarding claim 26, Bechtel teaches wherein: the dielectric material supports a further metal trace (another portion of 202/210) configured to electrically interconnect the semiconductor dies to form a circuit (110A-110D with interconnects/traces including 202/210); and the metal trace and further metal trace are comprised in a single layer (204/208) disposed on the second surface of the dielectric material (Figs. 3A-3B and cols. 6-7).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuzaki et al. (US 5,754,402; hereinafter “Matsuzaki”).
Regarding claim 22, Matsuzaki teaches a multi-cavity package, comprising: a single metal flange having first and second opposing main surfaces (a stem 30 formed of metal having top and bottom main surfaces) (Figs. 1-3 and cols. 4-6); and a dielectric material (a wiring substrate 50 including a dielectric material) attached to the first main surface of the single metal flange (Figs. 1-3 and cols. 4-6); wherein the dielectric material comprises a main portion (a center portion of 50 including through holes 52a and 52b), a lateral extension protruding out from the main portion (a lateral left-side portion of 50 protruding out from the center portion of 50 in a x-axis as shown in Fig. 1) and a further lateral extension protruding out from the main portion away from the lateral extension (a lateral right-side portion of 50 protruding out from the center portion of 50 in the x-axis as shown in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1 and cols. 4-6); and wherein the main portion comprises: a first surface facing the single metal flange (a bottom surface of 50 facing 30) (Figs. 1-3); a second surface facing away from the first surface (a top surface of 50 facing away from 30) (Figs. 1-3); and a plurality of openings exposing respective regions of the first main surface of the single metal flange (through holes 52a and 52b exposing regions of 30 for placing semiconductor chips 70a and 70b therein) (Figs. 1-3 and cols. 4-6).
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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtel.
Regarding claim 25, While Bechtel does not explicitly teach that at least one of the semiconductor dies (one of 110A-110D) is an amplifier die, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the at least one of the semiconductor dies (110A-110D) from Bechtel as the amplifier die in order to obtain the package having multiple semiconductor IC chips from Bechtel with desired functional characteristics such as amplifying the signal, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-11, 14-15, 18-19, 27, 30-32, and 34-37 are allowable over the cited prior arts. Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is discussed in the Office Action dated 12/08/2025. Withdrawn claims 3-4, 12-13, and 16, which depend from allowable claim 1, would be rejoined when the instant application is in condition for allowance since these claims require all the limitations of allowable claim 1. See MPEP § 804.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 22 has been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections by previously cited prior arts Matsuzaki et al. (US 5,754,402) and Bechtel et al. (US 5,182,632) as set forth above in this Office Action.
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 DANIEL WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights