DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Request for Continuation filed on April 2, 2026 in application 18/400,694.
Claims 1-17, 19-21 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 19-20 are amended. Claim 18 is previously cancelled.
IDS submitted on November 4, 2024 was acknowledged.
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 with respect to claim(s) 1-17, 19-21 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 12, 14, 17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haba et al. (US 2025/0006642).
In regard to claim 1, Haba et al. teach an apparatus comprising:
a first die that uses a first protocol (a first die comprising a first communications circuitry to format a communication signal according to a first communication protocol, para. 5);
a second die that uses a second protocol (a second die comprising a second communications circuitry to receive the communication signal formatted in the second communication protocol, para. 5); and
die management unit (a protocol switch die, para. 5) communicatively coupled to both the first die and the second die in an integrated circuit, wherein the die management unit is configured to:
obtain information related to the first protocol from the first die (receives the communication signal from the first die, para. 5);
identify one or more relationships between the first protocol and the second protocol based on the information (detect the format of the first communication signal and the format of the second communication signal, para. 7);
store the one or more relationships to facilitate converting messages between a first protocol and the second protocol format (the protocol switch die includes a memory to store various communication protocols, para. 7); and
in response to receiving at least one message from one of the first die or the second die, translate the at least one message between the first protocol format and the second protocol format to support communication between the first die and the second die (convert the communication signal from the first communication protocol to a second communication protocol, para. 5).
In regard to claim 2, Haba et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the first die lacks support for the second protocol (a first die with a first communication protocol, para. 20, incompatible, para. 39); and
the second die lacks support for the first protocol (a second die with a second communication protocol, para. 20, incompatible, para. 39).
In regard to claim 3, Haba et al. does not explicitly teach but Bagchi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first protocol comprises at least one of a custom protocol, a proprietary protocol, and a third-party protocol; and the second protocol comprises at least one of Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe), compute express link (CXL), universal serial bus (USB), advance extensible interface (AXI), coherent hub interface (CHI), inter-integrated circuit (I2C), serial peripheral interface (SPI), and improved inter-integrated circuit (I3C) (various communication protocols is based on at least one of architecture, data rate, number of input/output interconnects, voltages, clock speed, power, latency, bit error rate, or channel loss … the architecture may includes a serial or parallel architecture, para. 7).
In regard to claim 4, Haba et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the die management unit:
receives the at least one message from the first die (incoming communication, para. 52);
creates a compatible version of the at least one message that complies with the second protocol (convert incoming communication protocols to outgoing communication protocols, para. 52); and
sends the compatible version of the at least one message to the second die (outgoing protocols, para. 52).
In regard to claim 5, Haba et al. teach the apparatus of claim 4, wherein:
the second die comprises a set of system managers (in a multi-chiplet system, different chiplets can have their own communication protocols based on their functionalities, design consideration, and/or legacy requirements, para. 37); and
the die management unit (protocol switch die, para. 37):
interprets contents of the at least one message (converts signals, para. 37); and
directs the compatible version of the at least one message to a specific manager included in the set of system managers based at least in part on the contents of the at least one message (convert signals conforming to a second protocol, para. 37).
In regard to claim 9, Haba et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the die management unit:
detects, from the second die, a request formatted in the second protocol format to modify a power state of the first die (the choice of communication protocol for chiplets can depend on power constraints, para. 44, para. 47);
translates the request from the second protocol format to the first protocol format (converts the second communication protocol to the first communication protocol, para. 44); and
provide the translated requests to the first die to modify the power state based at least in part on the translated request (communication circuitry of the dies and/or chiplets can format the communication signals to be transmitted and/or received where a format of the first communication protocol and /or the second communication protocol can be based on power, para. 46, adjusting voltage levels, para. 39).
In regard to claim 12, Haba et al. teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the format used by the second die complies with an x86 machine check architecture (communication protocol can be based on at least one of architecture, para. 58).
In regard to claim 14, Haba et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the die management unit and the second die communicate via a predefined interface using a set of addressable components (inter-chiplet interfacing, para. 39).
In regard to claim 17, Haba et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the die management unit obtains during initialization, firmware and/or configuration information from the second die to be provided to and implemented by the first die (the integrated device die detects a format of the first communication protocol and the format of the second communication protocol during an initial powering on state, para. 19).
In regard to claim 21, Haba et al. does not explicitly teach but Bagchi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the second die is configured to manage at least one controller incorporated on the first die (the conversion can include modifying data structures, adapting communication speeds, bandwidth adjustments and latency, interconnect density at the beach front, adjusting voltage levels, and/or translating control signals, clock or clock forwarding, number of channels, error detection and debug protocols, repair strategy, physical layer linking and die to die adapter para. 39)
the at least one message is a command to modify at least one setting for the at least one controller (conversion can include modifying, para. 39);
the die management unit translates the command from the second protocol format to the first protocol format for use by the first die (convert the communication signal from the second communication protocol to the first communication protocol, para. 40); and
the die management unit provides the translated command within the at least one message to the first die (transmitting the communication signal to the first die, para. 40).
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 6-8, 10-11, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba et al. (US 2025/0006642) in further view of Wu et al. (US 2018/0300275).
In regard to claim 6, Haba et al. does not explicitly teach but Wu et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the first die experiences a fault (error detection in sideband errors or errors in LLPs critical to LSM state transitions, para. 98); and
the die management unit communicatively isolates the first die from the second die, wherein the at least one message comprises a command received from the second die in an attempt to repair the first die in view of the fault (errors can be caught corresponding of a state and can be transition to Reset, para. 99).
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of Haba et al. by adding Wu et al. multichip package link. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in the support of using multiple different protocols (para. 88).
In regard to claim 7, Haba et al. does not explicitly teach but Wu et al. teach the apparatus of claim 6, wherein:
the die management unit sends a translated version of the at least one message to the first die (LSM state transitions, para. 98); and
the first die is unable to recover from the fault despite receiving the translated version of the at least one message (errors detected in a sideband can be caught through a time-out mechanism, para. 100).
Refer to claim 6 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 8, Haba et al. does not explicitly teach but Wu et al. teach the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the die management unit executes either: a die-specific reset event that causes the first die to reset; or a global reset event that causes the integrated circuit to reset (error handling techniques where error can be logged and the link state machine can then be transitioned to Reset, para. 100).
Refer to claim 6 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 10, Haba et al. does not explicitly teach but Wu et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the die management unit:
detects, from the second die, a request formatted in the second protocol format to modify a security state of the first die (logical PHY 630 can be used to negotiate and manage link control signal sent between devices connected by the MCPL, para. 71, 66);
maps the security state as identified in the request to a corresponding security state of the first die (identify that the data is link layer-to-link layer messaging, para. 71);
translates the request from the second protocol format to the first protocol format based at least in part on the mapping of the security state to the corresponding security state (link layer messages enabled using LLP module can assist in the negotiation and performance of link layer state transitioning, para. 71); and
provide the translated request to the first die to implement the corresponding security state based at least in part on the translated request (data sent on each of the lanes of the MCPL can be strictly aligned to the strobe signal, para. 73-74).
Refer to claim 6 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 11, Haba et al. does not explicitly teach but Wu et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the die management unit: detects a reliability, availability, and serviceability (RAS) event in connection with the first die; translates the RAS event to a format used by the second die; and notifies the second die of the RAS event via the format used by the second die (a multichip package link (MCPL) can be implemented connecting a first device with a second device, para. 66, an MCPL can provide a physical layer (PHY) connection over which data is communicated between devices. The logical PHY can include logic for facilitating clocking, link state management, and protocol multiplexing between potentially multiple, different protocols used for communication over the MCPL, para. 67, multiple independent transaction layers can be provided at each device, para. 69-71)
Refer to claim 6 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 15, Haba et al.does not explicitly teach but Wu et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the die management unit: directs the second die to operate in a low power state; detects an event in connection with the first die; and refuses to notify the second die of the event due at least in part to the event not implicating the second die (when the valid signal is low, the source indicates to the sink that the sink will not be sending data on the data lanes during the following time period, accordingly, when the sink logical PHY detects that the valid signal is not asserted, the sink can disregard any data that is detected on the data lanes, para. 73).
Refer to claim 6 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 16, Haba et al. does not explicitly teach but Wu et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the die management unit: directs the second die to operate in a low power state; detects an event in connection with the first die; and implements a higher power state in the second die due at least in part to the event implicating the second die (a valid signal, sent on one or more dedicated valid signal channels, can serve as a leading indicator for the receiving device to identify, when asserted high, to the receiving device, that data is being sent, para. 73).
Refer to claim 6 for motivational statement.
**********
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba et al. (US 2025/0006642) in further view of Kondo et al. (US 2023/0004310).
In regard to claim 13, Haba et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the at least one message comprises a command received from the second die, directing the first die to modify a thermal setting; and the die management unit: translates the command to a format used by the first die; and directs the first die to modify a thermal setting via the format used by the first die.
Tang et al. does not explicitly teach but Kondo et al. teach the thermal control command (the thermal throttling control unit transmits a read command designated a specific address for temperature acquisition, to each NAND flash memory die, para. 67).
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of Haba et al. by adding Kondo et al. memory device controlling method. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid providing a thermal control command to the die (para. 67).
**********
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba et al. (US 2025/0006642) in further view of in further view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2023/0161722).
In regard to claim 19, Haba et al. teach a system comprising: an integrated circuit comprising:
a first die that uses a first protocol (a first die comprising a first communications circuitry to format a communication signal according to a first communication protocol, para. 5);
a second die that uses a second protocol (a second die comprising a second communications circuitry to receive the communication signal formatted in the second communication protocol, para. 5); and
a die management unit (a protocol switch die, para. 5) communicatively coupled to both the first die and the second die, wherein the die management unit is configured to:
obtain information related to the first protocol from the first die (receives the communication signal from the first die, para. 5);
identify one or more relationships between the first protocol and the second protocol based on the information (detect the format of the first communication signal and the format of the second communication signal, para. 7);
in response to receiving at least one message from one of the first die or the second die, translate the at least one message between the first protocol format and the second protocol format to support communication between the first die and the second die (convert the communication signal from the first communication protocol to a second communication protocol, para. 5); and
at least one interface communicatively coupled to the integrated circuit (a die to interface, between dies within the same package, para. 38).
Haba et al. does not explicitly teach distill the one or more relationships into a table that facilitates converting messages between a first protocol format and a second protocol format (protocol conversion unit 32a, correspondence between the data format based on the protocol A and the data format based on protocol B is defined in the protocol conversion table 34a in advance, para. 25).
It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of Haba et al. by adding Yamanaka et al. semiconductor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in providing a protocol conversion table for the protocol conversion unit to perform protocol conversion (para. 25).
In regard to claim 20, Tang et al. teach a method comprising:
coupling a first die that uses a first protocol to a die management unit in an integrated circuit (a first die comprising a first communications circuitry to format a communication signal according to a first communication protocol, para. 5);
coupling a second die that uses a second protocol to the die management unit in the integrated circuit (a second die comprising a second communications circuitry to receive the communication signal formatted in the second communication protocol, para. 5); and
configuring the die management unit (a protocol switch die, para. 5) to:
obtain information related to the first protocol from the first die (receives the communication signal from the first die, para. 5);
identify one or more relationships between the first protocol and the second protocol based on the information (detect the format of the first communication signal and the format of the second communication signal, para. 7);
in response to receiving at least one message from one of the first die or the second die, translate the at least one message between the first protocol format and the second protocol format to support communication between the first die and the second die (convert the communication signal from the first communication protocol to a second communication protocol, para. 5).
Haba et al. does not explicitly teach but Yamanaka et al. teach distill the one or more relationship into a table that facilitates converting messages between a first protocol format and a second protocol format (protocol conversion unit 32a, correspondence between the data format based on the protocol A and the data format based on protocol B is defined in the protocol conversion table 34a in advance, para. 25).
Refer to claim 19 for motivational statement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Jin et al. (US 2025/0077457) die-to-die interface
Kim et al. (US 2025/0147665) transaction converter
Loh et al. (US 12,332,824) convert standard communication protocol
Powell et al. (US 2025/0284651) convert streaming data in first protocol
*****************
Ding et al. (US 2022/0345370) protocol tables
Hadrick et al. (US 2024/0029767) die to die communication
*****************
Hadrick (US 2024/0029767) translate via a look up table, para. 29
*****************
Choudhary et al. (US 2022/0342841) die to die adapter
Vogelsang et al. (US 2021/0200680) normal and modified access of DRAM
Paley et al. (US 2021/0011819) managing context information for storage device
Hor et al. (US 2019/0227972) MCPL connecting two dies, dies protocol
Wagh et al. (US 2016/0285624) more than two protocols
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loan Truong whose telephone number is 408-918-7552. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM PST M-F.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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.
/Loan L.T. Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 HYPERLINK "mailto:Loan.truong@uspto.gov" Loan.truong@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights