DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1 – 28 have been examined and are pending.
Drawings
3. The applicant’s submitted drawings are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2024, 01/29/2025 and 04/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claims 2, 8 – 9 are objected to because of the following phrase “including comprises including”. In the claims, "including" is being used as a noun-like reference to a step from Claim 1, but "including" was used as a verb in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following phrases “first including” and “second including”. In the claims, "including" is being incorrectly used as a noun-like reference. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17 - 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of software, per se. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the applicant has claimed an apparatus with network interface, transmitter, receiver, generator, decoder, signal detector, controller, binary pattern generator, and segment partner without reciting any non-transitory or hardware element in the body of the claim. Thus, the claim is directed to a software product, per se, without any recitation of a non-transitory hardware element. Appropriate correction is required to direct claims 17-28 towards a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0227149 to Johnson in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0056380 to Rechtman (hereinafter Rechtman).
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson discloses (¶11) methods and apparatus for implementing adaptive equalization channel extension retimer link-up, which further includes:
method performed by a device that is part of a multi-segment network link (Johnson discloses (¶Fig. 2b) message flow between first and second end points coupled with a retimer device via network link segments. Johnson discloses (¶41) when a multi-lane link is brought up, auto-negotiation operations are performed over a single lane, while line training and subsequent data mode operations are performed for each of the multiple lanes), the method comprising: on a network interface facing a segment partner (Johnson discloses ¶23 communications link between KR End Points 1 and 2 and Retimer 202 extends the physical length of the communication link, which includes link segments 1 and 2), receiving incoming training frames from the segment partner and transmitting outgoing training frames to the segment partner (Johnson discloses KR training signals (¶24 - ¶27, Fig. 2b) independent link training is performed on both side of the communication link and during this state, each of transmitters TX1, TX2, TX3, TX4 transmit KR training signals that are being received at the local receivers RX1, RX2, RX3, RX4)
and including a ready-to-send indication in an outgoing training frame to be sent to the segment partner (Johnson discloses protocol (¶18), “Receiver Ready" is the specification defined bit used by the devices to communicate to the other end point that the local receiver is converged and ready to move to data mode. Johnson discloses (¶28 – ¶29), once it is determined that both Retimer 202's ports have an RX Ready status, Retimer 202 is reconfigured to pass through RX Ready signals, as depicted by an RS Ready signal 211, thus enabling propagation of the RX Ready indication from End Point 1 to End Point 2 to begun. At the conclusion of operation 6, all ports have achieved RX Ready, as shown in a block 112. At this stage, all ports are trained and ready to transition to data mode. Retimer 202 propagates the RX Ready indication from both End Points 1 and 2, as shown).
Johnson does not explicitly disclose wherein the ready-to-send indication indicates that the device has, on all lanes of the network interface, valid data and is ready to send data on the network interface to the segment partner. However, in an analogous art, Rechtman teaches:
wherein the ready-to-send indication indicates that the device has, on all lanes of the network interface, valid data and is ready to send data on the network interface to the segment partner (Rechtman teaches (¶89 and Fig. 5) the nodes 24 uses the “ready allowed” flags 500 to indicate to other ones of the nodes that link training of respective ones of the receiver-transmitter link partners has been completed over all respective lanes of links 18 (e.g., links 18-4, 18-1, 18-2, respectively).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method performed by a device that is part of a multi-segment network link, the method comprising: on a network interface facing a segment partner, receiving incoming training frames from the segment partner and transmitting outgoing training frames to the segment partner, and including a ready-to-send indication in an outgoing training frame to be sent to the segment partner, as disclosed by Johnson, and wherein the ready-to-send indication indicates that the device has, on all lanes of the network interface, valid data and is ready to send data on the network interface to the segment partner, as taught by Rechtman, for the purpose of implementing (¶2) a multi-segment communication network system for link training.
Claim 2, Johnson and Rechtman disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
determining when an incoming training frame received from the segment partner (Rechtman teaches (¶69) the Receiver 20 receiving the link-training (LT) frame 200 from the Transmitter 22), includes a receiver ready indication (Rechtman teaches (¶83) the LT machines are synchronized regarding the completion of LT of each link 18 using a “ready allowed” status/concept), wherein including comprises including the ready-to-send indication when the device has a receiver ready indication (Rechtman teaches protocol (¶83) the “ready allowed” flag (or bit) 500 is included in the LT frame 200 and indicates the readiness of the local receiver 20 with respect to LT completeness) and a received incoming training frame from the segment partner has a receiver ready indication on all lanes (Rechtman teaches (¶89 and Fig. 5) nodes 24 using the “ready allowed” flags 500 to indicate that link training has been completed for all respective lanes of links 18 (e.g., links 18-4, 18-1, 18-2, respectively).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 3, Johnson and Rechtman disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the ready-to-send indication is a single bit that is included in a bit of a status field of a training frame (Rechtman teaches (¶61 and Fig.2) the LT frame header and control/request and status/response bits 204), a first state of the single bit indicating that no data is available and training is to continue (Rechtman teaches (¶64) the status bits are used to acknowledge the neighboring hop, regarding the status of the transmitter, modulation, and precoding configuration status) and a second state of the single bit indicating to switch to data mode when training is complete (Rechtman teaches (¶83) link-training “ready allowed” flag (or bit) 500 in the LT frame 200 indicates the readiness of the local receiver 20 with respect to LT completeness and that their respective links 18 are tuned.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 4, Johnson and Rechtman disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
when both the ready-to-send indication is included and a received incoming training frame from the segment partner has a receiver ready indication, after a period of time (Rechtman teaches (¶83) once all LT machines (four in the case of the Half-Retimed Figs. 5A-D) set their “ready allowed” bits indicating that their respective links 18 are tuned, the LT machines complete the LT and move to operational mode (in which the system 10 may operate to send data after LT is completed), which generally occurs on all link partners at the same time (within a few milliseconds difference, which is expected) switching the network interface from transmitting outgoing training frames to transmitting data (Rechtman teaches (¶90) nodes 24 are configured to exit link training mode and enter operational mode being responsive to all receiver-transmitter link partners completing the link training.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 5, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, the combination of Johnson and Rechtman discloses all the elements of claim 5, including teaching the multi-segment network link partners e.g., the receiver-transmitter link partners between nodes 24-4 and 24-1, between nodes 24-1 and 24-2, and between node 24-2 and 24-3, respectively (Rechtman, ¶32 and ¶89). Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 6, Johnson and Rechtman disclose all the elements of claim 5. Further they disclose:
wherein the first ready-to-send indication indicates that the first segment partner has, on all lanes, valid data and is ready to send data to the device on the first network interface, and the second ready-to-send indication indicates that the second segment partner has, on all lanes, valid data and is ready to send data to the device on the second network interface (Rechtman teaches the link-training (LT) machines are synchronized regarding the completion of LT of each link 18 using a “ready allowed” status/concept. Further, Rechtman teaches (¶89 and Fig. 5) nodes 24 using the “ready allowed” flags 500 to indicate that link training has been completed for all respective lanes of links 18 (e.g., links 18-4, 18-1, 18-2, respectively).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 7, Johnson and Rechtman disclose all the elements of claim 5. Further they disclose:
determining when an incoming training frame received from the first segment partner includes an incoming receiver ready indication (Rechtman teaches (¶83) the link-training LT machines are synchronized regarding the completion of LT of each link 18 using a “ready allowed” status/concept, in which each receiver 20 sets a flag 500 that it has completed its tuning and “allows” LT to be completed. The “ready allowed” flag (or bit) 500 is included in the LT frame 200 and indicates the readiness of the local receiver 20 with respect to LT completeness) and including an outgoing receiver ready indication in an outgoing training frame transmitted to the first segment partner, wherein the first including and the second including are performed when the incoming receiver ready indication is detected in an incoming training frame and when the outgoing receiver ready indication is included in an outgoing training frame (Rechtman teaches (¶84 and Figs. 5A-D) shows how the “ready-allowed” flag 500 propagates to each node 24, and shows the logic (box 502) of each LT on each node 24.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 8, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, the combination of Johnson and Rechtman discloses all the elements of claim 8, including teaching the nodes 24 using the “ready allowed” flags 500 to indicate to other nodes that link training of receiver-transmitter link partners has been completed (Rechtman, ¶89 and Fig. 5) over all respective lanes of links 18 (e.g., links 18-4, 18-1, 18-2, respectively). Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 9, Johnson and Rechtman disclose all the elements of claim 7. Further they disclose:
wherein the second including comprises including the second ready-to-send indication in an outgoing training frame to the first segment partner when the device has a receiver ready indication and a received incoming training frame from the first segment partner has a receiver ready indication of the first segment partner on all lanes and a received incoming training frame from the second segment partner has a receiver ready indication of the second segment partner on all lanes (Rechtman teaches (¶83-¶84) 3) the link-training LT machines are synchronized regarding the completion of LT of each link 18 using a “ready allowed” status/concept. Rechtman teaches (¶89, Figs. 5A-D) shows how the “ready-allowed” flag 500 propagates to each node 24, and shows the logic (box 502) of each LT on each node 24. Figs. 5A-D demonstrate a specific order of receiver 20 readiness as follows: Port A's (node 24-1) RX 20 shown in Fig. 5A, then Retimer A's (node 24-2) RX 20 shown in Fig. 5B, then Port B's (node 24-3) RX 20 shown in Fig. 5C, and then Retimer B's (node 24-4) RX 20 shown in Fig. 5D. This order is only an example, and any completion order may occur, in other words, each receiver is able to reach an independent decision to enable the “ready allowed” flag 500 over all respective lanes of links 18 (e.g., links 18-4, 18-1, 18-2, respectively).)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 10, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 11, Johnson and Rechtman disclose all the elements of claim 5. Further they disclose:
when both the first ready-to-send indication and the second ready-to-send indication are received (Johnson teaches (¶54, ¶83) each receiver remains in LT mode until it receives a signal from all the other nodes that they have also completed LT by setting their status to “ready allowed” in the LT request frame. Once all LT machines set their “ready allowed” bits indicating that their respective links 18 are tuned, the LT machines complete the LT and move to operational mode) after a period of time switching the first network interface from transmitting outgoing training frames to transmitting data that is received from the second network interface, and switching the second network interface from transmitting outgoing training frames to transmitting data that is received from the first network interface (Rechtman teaches (¶90) nodes 24 are configured to exit link training mode and enter operational mode being responsive to all receiver-transmitter link partners completing the link training.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claims 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0227149 to Johnson, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0056380 to Rechtman, and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0043957 to Venkatraman (hereinafter Venkatraman).
Regarding Claim 12, Johnson discloses (¶11) methods and apparatus for implementing adaptive equalization channel extension retimer link-up, which further includes:
method performed by a device that is part of a multi-segment network link (Johnson discloses (¶Fig. 2b) message flow between first and second end points coupled with a retimer device via network link segments)
Johnson does not explicitly disclose the method comprising: disabling a first transmitter on a first network interface of the device for a period of time, disabling a second transmitter on a second network interface of the device, on a first network interface facing a first segment partner, receiving incoming training frames from the first segment partner, after the period of time, enabling the first transmitter on the first network interface and transmitting outgoing training frames to the first segment partner. However, in an analogous art, Venkatraman teaches:
the method comprising: disabling a first transmitter on a first network interface of the device for a period of time (Venkatraman teaches (¶23-¶31) link partners 1 and 2 may each disable their respective transmitter for a recovery duration period, e.g., 70ms as seen in Fig. 3)
disabling a second transmitter on a second network interface of the device (Venkatraman teaches (¶21) recovery logic 140 of SerDes device 1 may disable transmitter 1. Further, Venkatraman teaches (¶22) recovery logic 140 of SerDes device 2 will identify the high impedance state of the communication link and disable transmitter 2 for a predetermined recovery duration, e.g., 70ms)
on a first network interface facing a first segment partner, receiving incoming training frames from the first segment partner (Venkatraman teaches (¶28) thus, the recovery logic 140 of link partner 1 may enable transmitter 1 at time t3, which may be 70ms after time t1. Then, link partner 1 may start sending training frames, e.g., clause 72 frames, to link partner 2 through transmitter 1. Training frames which are sent by link partner 1 are received by link partner 2)
after the period of time, enabling the first transmitter on the first network interface and transmitting outgoing training frames to the first segment partner (Venkatraman teaches (¶28) similarly the recovery logic 140 of link partner 2 may enable transmitter 2 at time t4, which may be 70ms after transmitter 2 was disables at time t2. Then, link partner 2 may start sending training frames to link partner 1 through transmitter 2, as seen starting at time t4 in the example shown in Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method performed by a device that is part of a multi-segment network link, as disclosed by Johnson, and method comprising: disabling a first transmitter on a first network interface of the device for a period of time, disabling a second transmitter on a second network interface of the device, on a first network interface facing a first segment partner, receiving incoming training frames from the first segment partner, after the period of time, enabling the first transmitter on the first network interface and transmitting outgoing training frames to the first segment partner, as taught by Venkatraman, for the purpose of synchronizing (¶1) recovery of a connection between network link partners after a loss of signal.
Johnson in view of Venkatraman does not explicitly disclose when a first ready-to-send indication is included in an incoming training frame received from the first segment partner, enabling the second transmitter and transmitting a binary pattern from a second network interface to a second segment partner and when a receiver ready indication is determined for the second segment partner, including a second ready-to-send indication in an outgoing training frame transmitted to the first segment partner. However, in an analogous art, Rechtman teaches:
when a first ready-to-send indication is included in an incoming training frame received from the first segment partner, enabling the second transmitter and transmitting a binary pattern (Rechtman teaches (¶83) “ready allowed” flag or bit i.e. a binary pattern) from a second network interface to a second segment partner and when a receiver ready indication is determined for the second segment partner, including a second ready-to-send indication in an outgoing training frame transmitted to the first segment partner (Rechtman teaches protocol (¶83) the “ready allowed” flag 500 (or bit) is included in the LT frame 200 and indicates the readiness of the local receiver 20 with respect to LT completeness. Rechtman teaches (¶89, Figs. 5A-D) shows how the “ready-allowed” flag 500 propagates to each node 24, and shows the logic (box 502) of each LT on each node 24. Figs. 5A-D demonstrate a specific order of receiver 20 readiness as follows: Port A's (node 24-1) RX 20 shown in Fig. 5A, then Retimer A's (node 24-2) RX 20 shown in Fig. 5B, then Port B's (node 24-3) RX 20 shown in Fig. 5C, and then Retimer B's (node 24-4) RX 20 shown in Fig. 5D. This order is only an example, and any completion order may occur, in other words, each receiver is able to reach an independent decision to enable the “ready allowed” flag 500 over all respective lanes of links 18 (e.g., links 18-4, 18-1, 18-2, respectively).)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method performed by a device that is part of a multi-segment network link, and method comprising: disabling a first transmitter on a first network interface of the device for a period of time, disabling a second transmitter on a second network interface of the device, on a first network interface facing a first segment partner, receiving incoming training frames from the first segment partner, after the period of time, enabling the first transmitter on the first network interface and transmitting outgoing training frames to the first segment partner, as disclosed by Johnson in view of Venkatraman, and when a first ready-to-send indication is included in an incoming training frame received from the first segment partner, enabling the second transmitter and transmitting a binary pattern from a second network interface to a second segment partner and when a receiver ready indication is determined for the second segment partner, including a second ready-to-send indication in an outgoing training frame transmitted to the first segment partner, as taught by Rechtman, for the purpose of implementing (¶2) a multi-segment communication network system for link training.
Claim 13, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 14, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 15, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 11. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 11.
Claim 16 - 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0227149 to Johnson, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0056380 to Rechtman, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0043957 to Venkatraman, and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0181502 to Jen et al. (hereinafter Jen).
Claim 16, Johnson, Venkatraman and Rechtman discloses all the elements of claim 12. Johnson in view of Venkatraman and Rechtman does not explicitly disclose wherein the binary pattern is a pseudorandom binary sequence. However, in an analogous art, Jen teaches:
wherein the binary pattern is a pseudorandom binary sequence (Jen teaches (¶83 and Fig. 12) to perform adaptation and detect errors in signals received from any one of the transmitters on the link, adaptation pattern may include or be based on a pseudorandom pattern, such as a pseudorandom bit sequence (PRBS).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method performed by a device that is part of a multi-segment network link, and method comprising: disabling a first transmitter on a first network interface of the device for a period of time, disabling a second transmitter on a second network interface of the device, on a first network interface facing a first segment partner, receiving incoming training frames from the first segment partner, after the period of time, enabling the first transmitter on the first network interface and transmitting outgoing training frames to the first segment partner, and when a first ready-to-send indication is included in an incoming training frame received from the first segment partner, enabling the second transmitter and transmitting a binary pattern from a second network interface to a second segment partner and when a receiver ready indication is determined for the second segment partner, including a second ready-to-send indication in an outgoing training frame transmitted to the first segment partner, as disclosed by Johnson in view of Venkatraman in view of Rechtman, and wherein the binary pattern is a pseudorandom binary sequence, as taught by Jen, for the purpose of implementing (¶1) the point-to-point interconnects.
Regarding Claim 17, Johnson discloses (¶11) methods and apparatus for implementing adaptive equalization channel extension retimer link-up, which further includes:
a first network interface, a first transmitter and a first receiver associated with the first network interface (Johnson discloses network communication links (¶20 and Fig. 2a-2c) KR End Point #1 with a first transmitter TX1 and a first receiver RX2)
a second network interface, a second transmitter and a second receiver associated with the second network interface (Johnson discloses network communication links (¶20 and Fig. 2a-2c) KR End Point #2 with a second transmitter TX4 and a second receiver RX3)
a controller coupled to the first training frame generator, (Johnson discloses (Figs. 4, 5) a retimer device for training links i.e. a PHY circuitry 404a includes a Tx and Rx ports 412 and 414, each of which is coupled to an Rx port and Tx port of an upstream or downstream device)
wherein the controller is configured to: cause the first training frame generator to transmit outgoing training frames to a first segment partner via the first network interface and obtain training frame content obtained (Johnson discloses (¶15) retimer device should close off the channel between the two end points, train with each end point individually, and wait to indicate to the end points that its receiver is trained until it has both of its receivers in the path trained), cause the second training frame generator to transmit outgoing training frames to a second segment partner via the second network interface and obtain training frame content obtained (Johnson discloses (¶16) the retimer device intervenes with the adaptive equalization training, training both ends of the link individually between the two end points, and once both of the retimer's receivers are trained, it propagates the receiver readiness indication through from one end point to the other)
when a first ready-to-send indication is determined to be included in an incoming training frame received from the first segment partner, cause the second training frame generator to include the first ready-to-send indication in an outgoing training frame to be sent to the second segment partner (Johnson teaches (¶16, ¶18) training both ends of the link individually between the two end points, and once both of the retimer's receivers are trained, it propagates the receiver readiness indication through from one end point to the other. “Receiver Ready” is the specification defined bit used by the devices to communicate to the other end point that the local receiver is converged and ready to move to data mode) a first training frame generator (Rechtman teaches (¶48) generating Link Training (LT) frame and the associated DME encoded network control/request and status/response)
a second training frame generator (Rechtman teaches (¶48) during both LT both link partners exchange and generate Link Training (LT) frames simultaneously and the associated DME encoded network control/request and status/response)
and when a second ready-to-send indication is determined to be included in an incoming training frame received from the second segment partner, cause the first training frame generator to include the second ready-to-send indication in an outgoing training frame to be sent to the first segment partner (Venkatraman teaches (¶23 and Fig. 3) training protocol communication may include exchanging training and configuration parameters and synchronize the performing of training protocol communication between link partners to configure a communication link)
a first training frame decoder and a second training frame decoder (Jen teaches (¶67) enhanced retimer can realize support for link training and equalization. Jen teaches (¶98, Fig. 14) core 1401 further includes decode module 1425 coupled to fetch unit 1420 to decode fetched elements. Fetch logic, in, includes individual sequencers associated with thread slots 1401a, 1401b, respectively)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 16.
Claim 18, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 7.
Claim 20, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 21, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 9. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 9.
Claim 22, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 10. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 10.
Claim 23, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 11. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 11.
Claim 24, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 17. Therefore, the combination of Johnson, Rechtman and Jen discloses all the elements of claim 24, including teaching signal detector, wherein a retimer may be enhanced to include receiver detection logic (e.g., to support receiver detection events and states of a corresponding link) and monitoring logic to decode in-band messages to be regenerated and forwarded by the retimer to its destination on the other end of the link and extract information related to attributes, states, and transitions on the link including speed changes, transmitter equalization (or adaptation), and electrical idle entry (Jen, ¶67 and ¶78 - ¶79 and Fig. 11). Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 17.
Claim 25, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 26, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 10. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 10.
Claim 27, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 11. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 28, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 16. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 16.
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0259936 to Lusted et al. (Device-to-Device Link Training.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313) 446-6574 and fax number is (571) 483-7559. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY - THURSDAY.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher L. Parry can be reached on (571) 272-8328. 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:/Awww.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.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/GLENFORD J MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451