Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/711,784

CLOCKING ARCHITECTURE FOR A MULTI-DIE PACKAGE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 01, 2022
Examiner
ZAMAN, FAISAL M
Art Unit
2175
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Altera Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
614 granted / 917 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
960
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
63.4%
+23.4% vs TC avg
§102
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 917 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment 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 § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-7, 9, 10, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Self et al. (U.S. Patent Number 6,112,308) and Kashem et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0205252). Regarding Claim 1, Self discloses a device (Figure 6) comprising: system phase lock loop (PLL) circuitry (Figure 6, item 600, Column 8, lines 47-49; i.e., the “multiple PLL integrated circuit” 600 is equivalent to the claimed “system PLL circuitry”) to: receive an external reference clock from outside of the device as the only PLL circuitry receiving the external reference clock at the device (Figure 6, item 670); generate one or more reference clocks from the external reference clock (Figure 6, item 680, Column 8, lines 38-55); and transmit the one or more reference clocks to the plurality of chips (Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., a reference clock signal is sent from the system PLL to the multiple PLLs located within items 684 and 694, which are located within integrated circuit chips 682 and 692); and a plurality of PLL circuitries on the plurality of chips (Figure 6, see plural PLLs located within items 684 and 694, Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., each of the plurality of PLLs within items 684 and 694 are located within the integrated circuit chips 682 and 692) to: receive respective reference clocks of the one or more reference clocks at the plurality of chips using inter-die communications (Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., there are multiple integrated circuit dies 600, 682, and 692; therefore, the clock communications that occur between these various dies is equivalent to the claimed “inter-die communications”), generate respective sub-reference clocks from the received respective reference clocks (Column 8, lines 41-44; i.e., each PLL of the plurality of PLLs within items 684 and 694 provides a sub-reference clock to its associated subsystem), and transmit the respective sub-reference clocks from respective PLL circuitries of the plurality of PLL circuitries to drive operations of the plurality of chips (Figure 6, subsystems 1 and 2 within integrated circuits 682 and 692) using the respective sub-reference clocks, wherein one or more of the respective sub-reference clocks drive one or more chip of the plurality of chips (Column 8, lines 41-44; i.e., the subsystems 1 and 2 operate based on [are driven by] the respective sub-reference clocks received from the associated PLLs located within items 684 and 694), and the plurality of PLL circuitries and their respective plurality of chiplets do not receive any external reference clocks from outside of the device (Figure 6; i.e., the plural PLLs located within items 684 and 694 only receive the reference clock from item 600, which is within the device shown in Figure 6). Self does not expressly disclose a plurality of chiplets; and receive the respective reference clocks to compensate for different respective skews based at least in part on different propagation delays due to different trace lengths and to compensate the different respective reference clocks based at least on chiplet-specific electrical properties, routing, and interconnections between the plurality of chiplets. In the same field of endeavor (e.g., clock synchronization techniques), Kashem teaches a plurality of chiplets (Figure 4, items 430, paragraphs 0022-0023); and receive the respective reference clocks (Figure 4, item 440, paragraph 0022; see also Figure 3, item 320, paragraph 0020) to compensate for different respective skews (paragraphs 0019, 0021, and 0023) based at least in part on different propagation delays due to different trace lengths (paragraph 0019) and to compensate the different respective reference clocks based at least on chiplet-specific electrical properties (paragraph 0019; i.e., different chiplets can have different electrical properties caused by manufacturing variations that must be accounted for to correct the skew), routing, and interconnections between the plurality of chiplets (paragraphs 0020 and 0024; i.e., the branches of the clock tree involve different types of routing paths and interconnections that result in different sink points [i.e., chiplets] receiving the clock at different times, which must be accounted for in correcting the skew). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kashem’s teachings of clock synchronization techniques with the teachings of Self, for the purpose of increasing flexibility and scalability, reduced manufacturing costs, and enhanced performance by allowing for modular design, enabling manufacturers to mix and match different chiplets to create customized solutions and improve yields (these are all known advantages of chiplets) and further for the purpose of ensuring that all of the clocks are received in synchronization to the chiplets based on the particular needs of the circuit design. Regarding Claim 2, Self discloses the plurality of chiplets, wherein each chiplet of the plurality of chiplets comprises a PLL circuitry of the plurality of PLL circuitries (Figure 6, item 684, Column 8, lines 38-55). Regarding Claim 3, Self discloses wherein one of the plurality of chiplets comprises the system PLL circuitry (Column 8, lines 49-51; i.e., the system PLL is located within an integrated circuit chip 600). Regarding Claim 4, Self discloses a system PLL chiplet that comprises the system PLL circuitry (Column 8, lines 49-51; i.e., the system PLL is located within an integrated circuit chip 600). Regarding Claim 5, Self discloses the plurality of chiplets, wherein a chiplet of the plurality of chiplets comprises a corresponding PLL circuitry of the plurality of PLL circuitries and drives at least two chiplets of the plurality of chiplets (Column 9, lines 15-20; i.e., there may be a chain or cascade of PLL circuits). Regarding Claim 6, Kashem teaches wherein the at least two chiplets are similar chiplets (paragraph 0022). Regarding Claim 7, Kashem teaches wherein the at least two chiplets have a same function type (paragraph 0022; i.e., the plurality of chiplets have a slave function type). Regarding Claim 9, Self discloses a multi-die package (Figure 6) comprising: first system phase lock loop (PLL) circuitry (Figure 6, item 600, Column 8, lines 47-49; i.e., the “multiple PLL integrated circuit” 600 is equivalent to the claimed “first system PLL circuitry”) to: receive an external reference clock from outside of the multi-die package as the only PLL circuitry receiving the external reference clock at the multi-die package (Figure 6, item 670); generate a first one or more reference clocks from the external reference clock (Figure 6, item 680, Column 8, lines 38-55); and transmit the first one or more reference clocks (Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., a reference clock signal is sent from the system PLL to the multiple PLLs located within item 684); and a plurality of PLL circuitries on a plurality of chips of the multi-die package (Figure 6, see plural PLLs located within items 684 and 694, Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., each of the plurality of PLLs within items 684 and 694 are located within the integrated circuit chips 682 and 692 [the claimed “multi-die package”]) to receive the first one or more reference clocks at the plurality of chips using inter-die communications (Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., there are multiple integrated circuit dies 600, 682, and 692; therefore, the clock communications that occur between these various dies is equivalent to the claimed “inter-die communications”), wherein the plurality of PLL circuitries and respective pluralities of chips do not receive any external reference clocks from outside of the multi-die package (Figure 6; i.e., the plural PLLs located within item 684 only receive the reference clock from item 600, which is within the device shown in Figure 6). Self does not expressly disclose a plurality of chiplets; and receive the respective reference clocks to compensate for different respective skews based at least in part on different propagation delays due to different trace lengths and to compensate the different respective reference clocks based at least on chiplet-specific electrical properties, routing, and interconnections between the plurality of chiplets. In the same field of endeavor, Kashem teaches a plurality of chiplets (Figure 4, items 430, paragraphs 0022-0023); and receive the respective reference clocks (Figure 4, item 440, paragraph 0022; see also Figure 3, item 320, paragraph 0020) to compensate for different respective skews (paragraphs 0019, 0021, and 0023) based at least in part on different propagation delays due to different trace lengths (paragraph 0019) and to compensate the different respective reference clocks based at least on chiplet-specific electrical properties (paragraph 0019; i.e., different chiplets can have different electrical properties caused by manufacturing variations that must be accounted for to correct the skew), routing, and interconnections between the plurality of chiplets (paragraphs 0020 and 0024; i.e., the branches of the clock tree involve different types of routing paths and interconnections that result in different sink points [i.e., chiplets] receiving the clock at different times, which must be accounted for in correcting the skew). The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 1 applies equally as well to Claim 9. Regarding Claim 10, Self discloses wherein the first plurality of PLL circuitries generates respective sub-reference clocks from the first one or more reference clocks and transmits the respective sub-reference clocks to drive operations of a plurality of chips (Column 8, lines 41-44; i.e., the subsystems 1 and 2 [the “plurality of chips”] operate based on [are driven by] the respective sub-reference clocks received from the associated PLLs located within item 684). Self does not expressly disclose a plurality of chiplets. In the same field of endeavor, Kashem teaches a plurality of chiplets (Figure 4, items 430, paragraphs 0022-0023). The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 1 applies equally as well to Claim 10. Regarding Claim 13, Self discloses a plurality of dedicated PLL chips that comprises the plurality of PLL circuitries (Figure 6, items 684 and 694, Column 8, lines 41-44; i.e., the PLL circuits may be in the form of integrated circuit chips [Kashem teaches a plurality of chiplets - see Figure 1, items 110, paragraph 0064]). Regarding Claim 14, Self discloses a plurality of chiplets driven using the first one or more reference clocks, wherein the plurality of chiplets comprises the plurality of PLL circuitries (Figure 6, item 684, Column 8, lines 38-55). Regarding Claim 15, Self discloses a plurality of chiplets driven using the first one or more reference clocks (Figure 6, items 684 and 694, Column 8, lines 41-44; i.e., the PLL circuits may be in the form of integrated circuit chips), and an interconnect of the interconnections that connects at least two of the plurality of chips (Figure 6, item 600), wherein at least one of the plurality of PLL circuitries is located on the interconnect (Figure 6; i.e., item 600, which contains plural PLL circuitries, interconnects the plurality of integrated circuit chips 682 and 692 [Kashem teaches a plurality of chiplets - see Figure 4, items 430, paragraphs 0022-0023]). Regarding Claim 16, Self discloses a multi-die package (Figure 6) comprising: system phase lock loop (PLL) circuitry (Figure 6, item 600, Column 8, lines 47-49; i.e., the “multiple PLL integrated circuit” 600 is equivalent to the claimed “system PLL circuitry”) to: receive an external reference clock from outside of the multi-die package as the only PLL circuitry receiving the external reference clock at the multi-die package (Figure 6, item 670), generate first reference clocks from the external reference clock (Figure 6, item 680, Column 7, lines 56-67 and Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., plural first reference clocks can be provided through the use of the programmable divider/counter, each having a different frequency), and transmit the first reference clocks (Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., a reference clock signal is sent from the first system PLL to the multiple PLLs located within item 684); and a first plurality of PLL circuitries on a first plurality of chips (Figure 6, see plural PLLs located within items 684 and 692, Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., each of the plurality of PLLs within items 684 and 694 are located within the integrated circuit chips 682 and 692) to: receive the first reference clocks at the plurality of chips using inter-die communications (Column 8, lines 38-55; i.e., there are multiple integrated circuit dies 600, 682, and 692; therefore, the clock communications that occur between these various dies is equivalent to the claimed “inter-die communications”); generate first sub-reference clocks from the first reference clocks (Column 8, lines 41-44; i.e., each PLL of the plurality of PLLs within item 684 provides a sub-reference clock to its associated subsystem); and transmit the first sub-reference clocks from the first plurality of PLL circuitries to drive operation of the first plurality of chips (Column 8, lines 41-44; i.e., the subsystems 1 and 2 operate based on [are driven by] the respective sub-reference clocks received from the associated PLLs located within item 684), wherein the first plurality of PLL circuitries and the first plurality of chips do not receive any external reference clocks from outside of the multi-die package (Figure 6; i.e., the plural PLLs located within item 684 only receive the reference clock from item 600, which is within the device shown in Figure 6); and a second plurality of PLL circuitries (Figure 6, see any additional plural PLLs located within item 684, Column 8, lines 38-55) to: receive the first reference clocks (Column 8, lines 38-55); generate second sub-reference clocks from the first reference clocks (Column 8, lines 41-44; i.e., each PLL of the plurality of additional PLLs within item 684 provides a sub-reference clock to its associated subsystem); and transmit the second sub-reference clocks from the second plurality of PLL circuitries to drive operation of a second plurality of chips (Column 8, lines 41-44; i.e., the subsystems 1 and 2 operate based on [are driven by] the respective sub-reference clocks received from the associated PLLs located within item 694), wherein the second plurality of PLL circuitries and the second plurality of chips do not receive any external reference clocks from outside of the multi-die package (Figure 6; i.e., the plural additional PLLs located within item 684 only receive the reference clock from item 600, which is within the device shown in Figure 6). Self does not expressly disclose a first and second plurality of chiplets; and receive the first reference clocks to compensate for different respective skews based at least in part on different propagation delays due to different trace lengths and to compensate the different respective reference clocks based at least on chiplet-specific electrical properties, routing, and interconnections between the plurality of chiplets. In the same field of endeavor, Kashem teaches first and second plurality of chiplets (Figure 4, items 430, paragraphs 0022-0023); and receive the first reference clocks (Figure 4, item 440, paragraph 0022; see also Figure 3, item 320, paragraph 0020) to compensate for different respective skews (paragraphs 0019, 0021, and 0023) based at least in part on different propagation delays due to different trace lengths (paragraph 0019) and to compensate the different respective reference clocks based at least on chiplet-specific electrical properties (paragraph 0019; i.e., different chiplets can have different electrical properties caused by manufacturing variations that must be accounted for to correct the skew), routing, and interconnections between the plurality of chiplets (paragraphs 0020 and 0024; i.e., the branches of the clock tree involve different types of routing paths and interconnections that result in different sink points [i.e., chiplets] receiving the clock at different times, which must be accounted for in correcting the skew). The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 1 applies equally as well to Claim 16. Regarding Claim 17, Self discloses the first plurality of chiplets, wherein the first plurality of PLL circuitries are not disposed on the first plurality of chiplets (Figure 6; i.e., this would be the case if subsystems 1 and 2 within item 682 were interpreted as the claimed “first plurality of chiplets”). Regarding Claim 18, Self discloses the first plurality of chiplets, wherein the first plurality of PLL circuitries are disposed on the first plurality of chiplets (Figure 6, item 684, Column 8, lines 38-55). Regarding Claim 19, Self discloses the second plurality of chiplets, wherein the second plurality of PLL circuitries are not disposed on the second plurality of chiplets (Figure 6; i.e., this would be the case if subsystems 1 and 2 within item 692 were interpreted as the claimed “second plurality of chiplets”). Regarding Claim 20, Self discloses the second plurality of chiplets, wherein the second plurality of PLL circuitries are disposed on the second plurality of chiplets (Figure 6, item 694, Column 8, lines 38-55). Regarding Claim 21, Kashem teaches wherein the interconnections comprise an embedded multi-die interconnect bridge (Figure 2, items 205 and 215, paragraph 0017). Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Self and Kashem as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Bajaj et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0104750). Regarding Claim 8, Self and Kashem do not expressly disclose wherein the system PLL circuitry is to disable transmission of at least one of at least one of the one or more reference clocks to place a corresponding at least one of the chiplets in an idle mode. In the same field of endeavor (e.g., clock synchronization techniques), Bajaj teaches wherein the system PLL circuitry (Figure 2) is to disable transmission of at least one of at least one of the one or more reference clocks to place a corresponding at least one of the chiplets (Figure 2, item 209) in an idle mode (paragraph 0031; i.e., the clock is terminated from point 206 onward to the chiplet 209 is placed in an idle mode). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bajaj’s teachings of clock synchronization techniques with the teachings of Self and Kashem, for the purpose of reducing power consumption of the integrated circuit when the clock is not needed. Regarding Claim 11, Self and Kashem do not expressly disclose wherein the first system PLL circuitry disables transmission of at least one of the first one or more reference clocks to place an at least one of the chiplets in an idle mode. In the same field of endeavor (e.g., clock synchronization techniques), Bajaj teaches wherein the first system PLL circuitry (Figure 2) disables transmission of at least one of the first one or more reference clocks to place an at least one of the chiplets (Figure 2, item 209) in an idle mode (paragraph 0031; i.e., the clock is terminated from point 206 onward to the chiplet 209 is placed in an idle mode). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bajaj’s teachings of clock synchronization techniques with the teachings of Self and Kashem, for the purpose of reducing power consumption of the integrated circuit when the clock is not needed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a device for cascading a plurality of phased lock loop circuits. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 FAISAL M ZAMAN, ESQ. whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays. 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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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. /FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 01, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 19, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 12, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 20, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 06, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 12, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 27, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 04, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 04, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12578780
CIRCUIT SLEEP METHOD AND SLEEP CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572490
LINKS FOR PLANARIZED DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560993
POWER MANAGEMENT OF DEVICES WITH DIFFERENTIATED POWER SCALING BASED ON RELATIVE POWER BENEFIT ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12561267
Multiple Independent On-chip Interconnect
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12562599
Contactless Power Feeder
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+14.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 917 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