Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/689,757

LINK MONITORING AND INDICATION OF POTENTIAL LINK FAILURE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 08, 2022
Examiner
MARCELO, MELVIN C
Art Unit
2463
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Altera Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
667 granted / 777 resolved
+27.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -7% lift
Without
With
+-7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
792
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§103
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 777 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner notes the amendments to independent claim 1 were not incorporated into previously rejected independent claims 10 and 15. Further, there are no separate arguments associated with independent claims 10 and 15. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 10-12, 14-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 8817643 B1) in view of Froelich et al. (US 2020/0249275 A1). Sun teaches a PHY for autonomously measuring signal degradation to indicate if link loss is expected based on a baseline measurement of parameters and one or more subsequent measurement of parameters (Figures 1 and 3). Further, Sun teaches monitoring of TDM symbols in the 3GPP LTE standard (i.e. radio frequency system) in column 4, lines 15-37, where the communication channel quality are affected by conditions such as interference I column 1, lines 29-40. Sun does not teach a serial-deserializer device or failure associated with inter symbol interference data. In the same field of monitoring communication links, Froelich teaches that Inter Symbol Interference (ISI) can cause a high-speed I/O link to fail (paragraph 0042) where the device’s PHY includes a Serializer/Deserializer (paragraph 0049) and includes DFE tap Information (paragraph 0075). Further, Froelich teaches that the communication media can be Radio Frequency in paragraph 0081. Therefore, it 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 to modify Sun’s system to adopt Froelich’s teachings in order to monitor for Inter Symbol Interference for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to monitor channel quality parameters associated with radio frequency systems as suggested by Sun. With respect to the claims, references to the prior art appear in parenthesis. Claims 10. At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Sun’s Figure 1) to: configure circuitry configured to autonomously measure for signal degradation (Sun’s PHY processing unit for radio link monitoring in column 3, lines 50-60) at a physical layer interface (PHY) (Sun’s Figure 1, UE with PHY 29) and to indicate if link loss is expected to occur based on a baseline measurement of parameters and one or more subsequent measurements of parameters (Sun’s Radio link failure expected based on threshold (i.e. baseline measurement) compared to measured long term radio link quality in column 6, lines 17-27) , wherein the parameters comprise inter symbol interference (ISI) data comprising DFE tap Information from the SerDes device and pulse response data (Froelich teaches a SerDes in paragraph 0049, where it 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 to modify Sun’s system to adopt Froelich’s teachings in order to monitor for Inter Symbol Interference for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to monitor channel quality parameters associated with radio frequency systems as suggested by Sun. Further, Froelich teaches that the device tests for ISI using a DFE in paragraph 0065 and that DFE tap Information (i.e. number of DFE taps) is used where pulse response data corresponds to the responses at each of the specific number of DFE tap which includes zero tap in paragraph 0075). 11. The computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the parameters comprise one or more of: eye height, signal to noise ratio (SNR), phase lock loop (PLL) lock range, phase alignment values, equalizer coefficients, bias currents measured by an on-die analog-to-digital (A/D) converter, offset cancellation parameters, raw bit error rate (BER) error dependence statistics, and/or counter values of corrected and uncorrected Forward Error Correction (FEC) values (Sun’s Signal to noise ratio is the SINR in column 3, lines 2-20 and Froelich teaches that the channel quality parameter is presented as an eye pattern in paragraph 0026) . 12. The computer-readable medium of claim 10, comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: configure the circuitry to adjust an interval of parameter measurements based on the link loss being expected (Sun’s “adjust an interval of parameter measurements based on link loss being expected” reads broadly on the interval of parameter measurements being “short term radio link quality values” and “long term radio link quality values” in Figure 3 where the interval is short term versus the long term). 14. The computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein to indicate a potential connector dislocation based on changes to the ISI data, the circuitry is configured to: store a baseline ISI data for connector reflections; measure ISI data for connector reflections; and indicate a potential connector dislocation based on measured ISI data and baseline ISI data (The modification of Sun to monitor for ISI would have been to base the changes from SINR to ISI, such that Sun’s baseline threshold would have been a baseline ISI data for comparing measured ISI parameters where the ISI parameter readings in Froelich are reflection readings in paragraphs 0042 and 0065) . 15. A method (Sun’s Figure 1) comprising: autonomously measuring, by circuitry of a physical layer interface (PHY), for signal degradation by measurement of baseline parameters (Sun’s PHY processing unit for radio link monitoring in column 3, lines 50-60) and indicating, by the circuitry of the PHY, if link loss is expected to occur based on the baseline parameters and one or more subsequent measurements of parameters (Sun’s Radio link failure expected based on threshold (i.e. baseline measurement) compared to measured long term radio link quality in column 6, lines 17-27) , wherein the parameters comprise inter symbol interference (ISI) data comprising DFE tap Information from the SerDes device and pulse response data (Froelich teaches a SerDes in paragraph 0049, where it 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 to modify Sun’s system to adopt Froelich’s teachings in order to monitor for Inter Symbol Interference for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to monitor channel quality parameters associated with radio frequency systems as suggested by Sun. Further, Froelich teaches that the device tests for ISI using a DFE in paragraph 0065 and that DFE tap Information (i.e. number of DFE taps) is used where pulse response data corresponds to the responses at each of the specific number of DFE tap which includes zero tap in paragraph 0075). 16. The method of claim 15, wherein the parameters comprise one or more of: eye height, signal to noise ratio (SNR), phase lock loop (PLL) lock range, phase alignment values, equalizer coefficients, bias currents measured by an on-die analog-to-digital (A/D) converter, offset cancellation parameters, raw bit error rate (BER) error dependence statistics, and/or counter values of corrected and uncorrected Forward Error Correction (FEC) values (Sun’s Signal to noise ratio is the SINR in column 3, lines 2-20 and Froelich teaches that the channel quality parameter is presented as an eye pattern in paragraph 0026). 18. The method of claim 15, comprising: adjusting an interval of parameter measurements based on link loss being expected (Sun’s “adjust an interval of parameter measurements based on link loss being expected” reads broadly on the interval of parameter measurements being “short term radio link quality values” and “long term radio link quality values” in Figure 3 where the interval is short term versus the long term). 19. The method of claim 15, comprising: indicating a potential connector dislocation based on changes to ISI data (Froelich teaches the monitoring of ISI failure in paragraph 0042, where it 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 to modify Sun’s system to adopt Froelich’s teachings in order to monitor for Inter Symbol Interference for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to monitor channel quality parameters associated with radio frequency systems as suggested by Sun). 20. The method of claim 19, wherein indicating a potential connector dislocation based on changes to ISI data comprises: storing a baseline ISI data for connector reflections; measuring ISI data for connector reflections; and indicating a potential connector dislocation based on measured ISI data and baseline ISI data (The modification of Sun to monitor for ISI would have been to base the changes from SINR to ISI, such that Sun’s baseline threshold would have been a baseline ISI data for comparing measured ISI parameters where the ISI parameter readings in Froelich are reflection readings in paragraphs 0042 and 0065). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 22-25 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record such as Zhong et al. (US 2010/0046598 A1) and Agazzi (US 2002/0122503 A1) teach various DFEs in a SerDes device, but not the particular arrangement for summing the ISI data for a tap. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN C MARCELO whose telephone number is (571)272-3125. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00. 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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. MELVIN C. MARCELO Primary Examiner Art Unit 2463 /MELVIN C MARCELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463 October 16, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 08, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 15, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 30, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 12, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 13, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12562998
LINK MONITOR FOR A SWITCH HAVING A PCIE-COMPLIANT INTERFACE, AND RELATED SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556986
USER EQUIPMENT, SOURCE ACCESS NODE AND METHODS IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550227
TIMER OPERATING METHOD, TERMINAL DEVICE, AND NETWORK DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12549305
PARTIAL SOUNDING OF SOUNDING REFERENCE SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12550056
INFORMATION TRANSMISSION METHOD, APPARATUS, NETWORK SIDE DEVICE, AND TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-7.4%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 777 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month