DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-12, 15, 17-22, 24, 27-28, 31-32 are pending.
This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to argue on page 8, that although Ware teaches using a serializer/de-serializer and a technique to distribute clock, Ware does not teach a separate optical waveguides for data and clock transmission. Applicant appears to further argue on page 8 that Ware distribute clock signals among components at the memory, whereas the claims recite usage of separate waveguides for transmission of data and clock. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Ware does not teach a separate optical waveguides for data and clock transmission, Examiner notes that Pelekhaty was relied on to teach an optical waveguide. However, Pelekhaty shared a single optical waveguide to communicate both data and clock signals, and thus Examiner relied on Ware to show that a separate connection from the data channels may be used to provide the clock signals. Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pelekhaty with Ware, and the combination would yield transmitting data signals on one optical waveguide and transmitting clocks separately on another optical waveguide. Pelekhaty teaches the type of transmission medium to be used (optical waveguides), and Ware teaches that data and clocks are transmitted separately. The rationale for such a combination was explained in the rejection of the independent claims.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Ware distribute clock signals among components at the memory, whereas the claims recite usage of separate waveguides for transmission of data and clock, Examiner notes that Ware transmits both data and clock, and transmits them separately [FIG. 2B: (data transmitted on lines 226-228 while clock transmitted on CK line)]. Examiner again notes that it is Pelekhaty that shows the use of optical waveguide for transmission of signals, and it is not just among components in memory. Ware was merely brought in to show that a separate connection may be used to transmit the clock signal while SERDES is used to transmit the data signal. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Ware’s teachings allow Pelekhaty to transmit the clock separately from the data, and Pelekhaty teaches that data and clocks may be transmitted using optical waveguide medium. Thus the combination would allow transmitting data and clock separately using two optical waveguide mediums.
Thus for the reasons described above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the previously cited prior art is maintained.
Lastly, it is noted in the previously cited but not used prior art in the conclusion section of the previous Office Action, Cahill shows using SERDES and an optical waveguide for transmitting the clock signal [0034-0035, claim 4, and FIG. 4]. Thus Cahill can also be used instead of Ware to combine with Pelekhaty to teach the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 is similar to the previous claim 8, which has been cancelled by Applicant due to indefiniteness from conflicting limitations (the independent claim indicates clock and data signal transmitted separately while the dependent claim indicates they are transmitted together). Thus Claim 24 has the same issues as claim 8 and should be cancelled or amended accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 11, 17, 19-22, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelekhaty et al. (hereinafter as Pelekhaty) PGPUB 2015/0172040, and further in view of Ware PGPUB 2012/0239898.
As per claim 1, Pelekhaty teaches a clock signal distribution method, comprising:
transmitting an optical clock signal at a clock frequency via an optical waveguide [FIG. 2, 0021, and 0027: (link between MUX and DEMUX may be fiber optic cables; clock transmitter generates and transmits an optical clock via link 42 (optical waveguide))],
wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted separately from optical data transmissions [0027: (a separate wavelength channel is used for clock forwarding between clock transmitter and clock receiver; it is a separate channel than the data transmission performed using data transmitters and data receivers)];
receiving the optical clock signal at the same clock frequency using a photodetector [FIG. 2, 0005, and 0026: (clock receiver 32b and use of photodetector to receive signals transmitted over link 42)];
converting the optical clock signal into an electrical clock signal using the photodetector [0031: (photodetector is implicit with the reception of the optical signal and conversion to an electrical signal)], wherein the electrical clock signal has the same clock frequency as the optical clock signal [0029 and 0032: (receiver clock has the same frequency as the transmitter clock; thus there is no difference between the transmitter clock, i.e. optical clock, and receiver clock, i.e. electrical clock)]; and
transmitting the electrical clock signal at the clock frequency via an electrical connection [0031: (electrical clock signal is sent to a clock distribution and data recovery circuit to be distributed to each of the optical transceivers; optical clock signal is retrieved using photodetector and converted into an electrical signal that is provided to clock distribution and data recovery circuit 48, which is used to recover data from the other data receivers)].
Pelekhaty does not explicitly teach wherein the optical waveguide used to transmit the optical clock signal is used exclusively for the optical clock signal and a further optical waveguide is used for a data signal. Pelekhaty describes a single shared connection of an optical waveguide to communicate both data and clock signals, but does not describe having separate connections for clock and data signals.
Ware teaches using serializer and deserializer to communicate data between two different components [FIG. 2B and 0034-0036: (serializer1 222 converts 16-bit wide data into a serialized 1 bit wide data and transmits it over connection 226 to deserializer D1 to recover the 16 bits)]. Ware is thus similar to Pelekhaty because they both utilize SerDes for communication. Ware further teaches wherein the waveguide used to transmit the clock signal is used exclusively for the clock signal and a further waveguide is used for a data signal [FIG. 2B and 0035 and 0039: (a separate connection is used to provide the clock signals while separate SerDes connections are used to communicate the data signals)]. In summary, Ware teaches having data signals and clock signal being transmitted and received over separate connections.
The combination of Pelekhaty with Ware therefore allows Pelekhaty to provide a optical waveguide channel 42 for the transmission of data using SerDes, as well as a separate optical waveguide channel for the transmission of the clock signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ware’s teachings of providing a connection for data and a separate connection for the clock in Pelekhaty to yield two separate optical waveguide connections for the clock and data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide separate connections for the clock and data signals in Pelekhaty because it improves the availability of a high speed clock and improves reliability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use optical waveguides for the separate data and clock connections because Pelekhaty already describes using a fiber optic link between the transmitting and receiving components, and it would be logical to also use a fiber optic link again between the components because the signals need to travel through the same space, which would help maintain synchronization.
As per claim 3, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1, wherein the electrical clock signal is used by an electronic component at the clock frequency [Pelekhaty FIG. 2: (received clock signal is used by clock distribution and data recovery circuit 48)].
As per claim 4, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 3, wherein the electronic component is a serializer/deserializer, SerDes [Pelekhaty FIG. 2: (receivers on the right side recover the data tributaries which are equivalent to the data tributaries as input on the left side using Mux and Demux for serialization and deserialization)].
As per claim 5, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1, wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted via the optical waveguide over a distance that is at least 10 times larger than the distance over which the electrical clock signal is transmitted via the electrical connection [Pelekhaty FIG. 2: (the length of link 42 is much longer (more than 10 times) than the small distance between clock 32b and clock distribution data recovery 48)].
As per claim 6, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1, wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted and received within an integrated circuit, or wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted and received on a single circuit board, or wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted on a first circuit board and received on a second circuit board [Pelekhaty claim 3: (may be photonically integrated; e.g. may be integrated) and 0036: (disclosed invention may be used in chip to chip or board to board applications; thus optical clock may be transmitted from one board and received on a second board, or from one chip to another chip on a single board)].
As per claim 9, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 8, wherein a further photodetector, different to the photodetector that receives the optical clock signal, is used to receive the data signal [Pelekhaty 0026 and 0033: (photodetector for each receiver of data, which would be different from a clock photodetector)].
As per claim 11, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1 wherein the frequency of the optical clock signal is between 20 GHz and 200 GHz [Pelekhaty 0002: (rates of 20G or 25G) or 0050]
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21 is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 6 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 24, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the clock signal distribution system of claim 18, wherein an optical carrier used for the optical clock signal shares the optical waveguide with a further optical carrier used for a data signal, the optical carrier and further optical carrier having different wavelengths [Pelekhaty 0031, 0037, and FIG. 2: (data signal and clock signals share the link 42 for transmission)].
Claim 27 is similar in scope to claim 11 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 12, 18, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelekhaty et al. (hereinafter as Pelekhaty) PGPUB 2015/0172040 in view of Ware PGPUB 2012/0239898, and further in view of Kato et al. (hereinafter as Kato) USPAT 5,394,490.
As per claim 2, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1.
Pelekhaty and Ware does not teach wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted to a plurality of photodetectors. Pelekhaty shows sending optical clock signal from one circuit to another circuit, and not from one circuit to a plurality of circuits.
Kato teaches providing optical clock signals through an optical waveguide to receiver circuits that retrieve the clock signal using a photodetector, and that separately receive data. Kato is thus similar to Pelekhaty and Ware since they teach the transmission of an optical clock signal and recovery of the clock. Kato further teaches wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted to a plurality of photodetectors [FIG. 11, FIG. 13, col. 11 lines 60-62, and col. 12 lines 12-14: (optical clock signal is provided to a plurality of destinations 1009 that each have an optical receiver 1004; each optical receiver has a photodetector 1031 for receiving the clock signal)].
The combination of Pelekhaty and Ware with Kato leads to Pelekhaty transmitting the optical clock signals from one circuit to a plurality of circuits, where each has a photodetector for clock recovery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kato’s teachings of transmitting the optical clock signal to a plurality of circuits in Pelekhaty and Ware. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the optical clock signal in Pelekhaty to a plurality of circuits having their own clock photodetector because it allows for communication of clock and data with a plurality of circuits, thereby improving overall functionality and/or adding redundancy.
As per claim 12, Pelekhaty and Ware teaches the method of claim 11.
Pelekhaty and Ware do not teach wherein the frequency of the optical clock signal is between 90 GHz and 110 GHz.
Kato teaches providing optical clock signals through an optical waveguide to receiver circuits that retrieve the clock signal using a photodetector, and that separately receive data. Kato is thus similar to Pelekhaty and Ware since they teach the transmission of an optical clock signal and recovery of the clock. Kato further teaches wherein the frequency of the optical clock signal is between 90 GHz and 110 GHz [col. 11 line 66: frequency of 100GHz or higher].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kato’s teachings of operating at 100GHz or higher in Pelekhaty and Ware’s link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to operate at 100GHz or higher in Pelekhaty and Ware because it is a general frequency used by transmitters and receivers that considers propagation loss [Kato col. 11 lines 63 – col. 12 line 4].
As per claim 18, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the clock signal distribution system of claim 17.
Pelekhaty and Ware does not teach comprising a further optical clock signal receiver wherein the optical clock signal transmitter is configured to transmit the optical clock signal to a photodetector in the further optical clock signal receiver. Pelekhaty shows sending optical clock signal from one circuit to another circuit, and not from one circuit to a plurality of circuits.
Kato teaches providing optical clock signals through an optical waveguide to receiver circuits that retrieve the clock signal using a photodetector, and that separately receive data. Kato is thus similar to Pelekhaty and Ware since they teach the transmission of an optical clock signal and recovery of the clock. Kato further teaches transmit the optical clock signal to a photodetector in the further optical clock signal receiver [FIG. 11, FIG. 13, col. 11 lines 60-62, and col. 12 lines 12-14: (optical clock signal is provided to a plurality of destinations 1009 that each have an optical receiver 1004; each optical receiver has a photodetector 1031 for receiving the clock signal; thus there is optical signal receiver and a further optical signal receiver)].
The combination of Pelekhaty and Ware with Kato leads to Pelekhaty transmitting the optical clock signals from one circuit to a plurality of circuits each having optical signal receiver, where each has a photodetector for clock recovery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kato’s teachings of transmitting the optical clock signal to a plurality of circuits in Pelekhaty and Ware. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the optical clock signal in Pelekhaty to a plurality of circuits having their own clock photodetector because it allows for communication of clock and data with a plurality of circuits, thereby improving overall functionality and/or adding redundancy.
Claim 28 is similar in scope to claim 12 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 15, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelekhaty et al. (hereinafter as Pelekhaty) PGPUB 2015/0172040 in view of Ware PGPUB 2012/0239898, and further in view of Loh PGPUB 2012/0224613.
As per claim 15, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1.
Pelekhaty and Ware do not explicitly teach wherein the method is implemented in an Extremely High Frequency, EHF, radio signal generation system.
Loh teaches using a multiplexer and a demultiplexer with a transmission line interconnect 10 to transmit signals for a device. Loh is thus similar to Pelekhaty and Ware and have the same structure. Loh further teaches wherein the method is implemented in an Extremely High Frequency, EHF, radio signal generation system [0006: (coaxial interconnect is designed and used for extremely high frequency inter-chip communication in the 30-300GHz range)]. Loh indicates that the transmission line interconnect operates in the extremely high frequency range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Loh’s teachings of the interconnect operating in the extremely high frequency range in Pelekhaty and Ware’s link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to operate Pelekhaty’s link in the extremely high frequency range because it allows for millimeter wave communication to be implemented with microCoax, which provides a low-cost chip wire-bonding [Loh 0006].
Claim 31 is similar in scope to claim 15 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 32, Pelekhaty, Ware, and Loh teach a node in a telecommunications network comprising the EHF radio signal generation system of claim 31 [Pelekhaty 0001 and Loh 0004 and FIG. 2: (described circuitry are nodes of a telecommunication network)].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANNY CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 EST.
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 5712703779. 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.
/DANNY CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights