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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Pages 13-15 of the Remarks comprise arguments directed to limitations that are not found in the independent claims and are therefore moot in arguing the rejection of the independent claims. Those limitations include: “proxy-based” idea, async proxy FIFO, the power off/on scenarios, and resource accuracy and power-cycling resilience.
It is noted that the features are not recited in the rejected independent claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The amendments to claim 11 have overcome the 112 rejections.
The amendment to the Drawings overcomes the previous Drawings objection. However, a new objection has been made below to address reference numerals that do not appear in the Specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 196, 372, 374, 376, 364, 416, 422, 426, and 412. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0182391 in view of Agrawal et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0201398.
Per Claim 1, Theobald discloses:
an interface method in a system-on-chip (Paragraphs 55, 56, 103, and 107-109), comprising:
setting, by a first circuit unit (Fig. 8, Device A 805), a resource value to an initial value corresponding to a number of payload data storable in a buffer of a second circuit unit (Paragraph 73; Credit based flow control protocol has credit initialization 1015. Paragraph 78; counters are provided for each queue/buffer to track the number of reserved credits that are available. The value of each counter can be set to a respective initial value at credit initialization to reflect the number of reserved slots for the queue.);
transmitting, by the first circuit unit (Fig. 8, Device A 805), first payload data transferred from a first functional block and a first signal for requesting buffer allocation for storing the first payload data to the second circuit unit (Device B 810) (Paragraphs 65-68, Fig. 8; Request logic 835 can generate a request embodied as one or more packets to be sent to device 810. Device 810 comprises buffer 870 and a flow control method is used by resources 830 and 865 to ensure the buffer 870 is not overloaded.),
and decreasing the resource value by one (Paragraph 60; “Accordingly, when the transmitter sends a packet (or flit or other piece of data corresponding to a credit) the transmitter can decrement its corresponding credit counter.”)
storing, by the second circuit unit, the first payload data in the buffer according to the first signal; withdrawing, by the second circuit unit, payload data selected among the payload data stored in the buffer and transferring the payload data to a second functional block, and transmitting a second signal indicating that the buffer is empty to the first circuit unit; and increasing, by the first circuit unit, the resource value by one according to the second signal (Paragraphs 65-67 discuss the credit counters used by device A 805. Paragraphs 73-89 and Figure 10 discuss the use of credits by Device A 805 when issuing requests of data to be stored in the buffer 870 of device B 810. Fig. 10 shows the credit counters (left side) being incremented and decremented as data is freed or stored in said buffers. Credit return logic 880 (Paragraph 67) returns credits to Device A when the queues 875 of Buffer 875 are emptied. Paragraph 60 discusses the returning of credits after the receiver finishes processing of a previously received packet. This processing can be transferring data from the received packets to an additional “functional block” if the received packet was an I/O write as described in paragraph 62.),
Theobald does not specifically teach utilizing two different clock domains with respect to Device A 805 and Device B 810.
However, Agrawal similarly discloses a credit counter flow control system and further teaches where the producer and the consumer are located in different clock domains (Paragraphs 5, 6, and 15).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for two devices of Theobald to operate within different clock domains, as taught by Agrawal, because SoC systems can be partitioned to operate independently, while still communicating with other sections of the SoC.
Per Claim 3, Theobald discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first payload data includes an ID capable of identifying a block which generates the first payload data (Paragraph 37; source ID 310), and the selected payload data is selected according to a predetermined ID priority (Paragraphs 38 and 75).
Per Claim 4, Theobald discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first payload data includes QoS information, and the selected payload data is selected according to a predetermined QoS policy (Paragraphs 61 and 72).
Per Claim 5, Theobald discloses that payload data appears to be stored in an order within the buffer (Paragraph 73, Figure 10; Buffer 1020), however, it is not clear if this is part of a FIFO scheme or simply for illustrative purposes.
However, Agrawal similarly discloses the credit counter system being used with asynchronous FIFO queues (Paragraphs 5, 6, and 15).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the buffers/queues of Theobald to be operated with a FIFO scheme, as taught by Agrawal, because it ensures fairness in the selection and processing of data packets.
Per Claims 7 and 10, please refer to the above rejection of claims 1 and 4, respectively, as the limitations are substantially similar and the mapping of the limitations is equally applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 14, 15, and 22-24 are allowed.
Claims 16, 19, and 25 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 is considered to distinguish over Theobald, Agrawal, and the prior art due to both of the first circuit (master side) and second circuit (slave side) comprising the ability to perform the actions described in independent claim 1.
Claims 16, 19, and 25 distinguish over Theobald, Agrawal, and the prior art due to the master-side proxy circuit/FIFO teachings, when considered in combination with the limitations of the independent claims.
Claims 17, 18, 20, and 21 inherit the allowable subject matter of claims 16 and 19.
- Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. 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).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175