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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US PGPUB 2018/0217657) in view of Bailey (US PGPUB 2019/0204864).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 2 of Song discloses a device comprising:
a clock tree configured to send a clock signal to a plurality of circuit blocks [293]
a clock driver for driving a portion of the clock tree [212]
Song does not explicitly disclose a control circuit configured to power off the clock driver.
Bailey discloses a control circuit configured to power gate one or more of the plurality of circuit blocks corresponding to the portion of the clock tree and power off the clock driver [paragraph 53].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included power gating the clock tree and powering off the clock driver as taught by Bailey in the device of Song for the purpose of reducing power consumption, as implied by Bailey [paragraph 53].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Song and Bailey, as applied to claim 1, discloses wherein a circuit block of the plurality of circuit blocks is power gated and the control circuit is further configured to power on the clock driver to enable the first circuit block being powered on [Figure 2 Song, paragraph 53 Bailey].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Song and Bailey, as applied to claim 2, discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to power on the clock driver in response to a wakeup event received by the control circuit [Figure 2 Song, paragraph 53 Bailey].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Song and Bailey, as applied to claim 3, discloses wherein the wakeup event corresponds to a partial power state in which the first circuit block exits power gating and the clock driver is powered on while other circuit blocks remain power gated [Figure 2 Song, paragraph 53 Bailey].
Regarding claim 18, Figure 2 of Song discloses a method comprising:
power gating, in response to a power gate event, one or more circuit blocks [293]
exiting power gating in the one or more circuit blocks [293]
Song does not explicitly disclose
powering off a clock driver of a segment corresponding to the one or more circuit blocks
powering on, in response to a wakeup event, the clock driver
in response to powering on the clock driver
Bailey discloses
powering off a clock driver of a segment corresponding to the one or more circuit blocks [paragraph 53]
powering on, in response to a wakeup event, the clock driver [paragraph 53]
in response to powering on the clock driver [paragraph 53]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included powering off and on the clock driver as taught by Bailey in the method of Song for the purpose of reducing power consumption, as implied by Bailey [paragraph 53].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Song and Bailey, as applied to claim 18, discloses wherein the wakeup event is propagated asynchronously with respect to the one or more circuit blocks [Figure 2 Song, paragraph 53 Bailey].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 19 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.
Claims 9-17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Song and Bailey does not teach power gating circuit block corresponding to the clock tree. The examiner disagrees. Paragraph 53 of Bailey discloses data flip-flops downstream of the clock drivers being power gated. Therefore, the combination of Song and Bailey discloses all of the claim limitations. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 Tomi S Skibinski whose telephone number is (571)270-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 10am - 8pm.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/TOMI SKIBINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842