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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 22, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated March 20, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on June 30, 2026, have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 (See Applicant’s response, pages 7-10, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”), Applicant argues that Keeth in view of Song and Rubin does not teach the amended limitation “the interposer comprises a first interconnect and a second interconnect, the first interface is coupled to the third interface through the first interconnect, and the second interface is coupled to the fourth interface through the second interconnect.“ Specifically, that that Keeth in view of Song and Rubin fails to teach a direct connection between interfaces via interconnects that are embedded within a single interposer. Examiner agrees that Keeth in view of Song and Rubin fails to teach a direct connection between interfaces via interconnects that are embedded within a single interposer. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a direct connection between interfaces via interconnects that are embedded within a single interposer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Thus, Keeth in view of Song and Rubin, does teach amended claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation as the interfaces are coupled through the interconnects of the interposer as laid out in the rejections of claims 1, 4 and 5 in the Non-Final Office Action dated March 20, 2026. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Keeth in view of Song and Rubin is maintained.
Regarding claims 9 and 15 (See Applicant’s response, pages 10-11, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”), Applicant argues that Song fails to teach the amended limitation “the second interface is characterized by a first data rate, the third interface is characterized by a second data rate, and a ratio of the second data rate to the first data rate is greater than 5:1” as Song does not teach the second circuit providing different data-rate interfaces as the data rate mismatch is only achieved by simply changing the number of data transfer lines. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Song teaches the data rate mismatch by just simply changing the number of data transfer lines, as Song teaches “Each first data transfer line TL1 may have a first data transfer rate DTR1 and each second data transfer line TL2 may have a second data transfer rate DTR2. The first data transfer rate DTR1 of the first data transfer line TL1 may be less than the second data transfer rate DTR2 of the second data transfer line TL2. In some exemplary embodiments, the second data transfer rate DTR2 may be an even multiple of the first data transfer rate DTR1. For example, the second data transfer rate DTR2 may be about two times, about four times, or about eight times the first data transfer rate DTR1” (Song, Fig. 1; Col. 4 lines 18-27). Therefore, Song teaches that each individual first data transfer line TL1 and each individual second data transfer line TL2 have their own respective data rates and that the second data transfer rate DTR2 of each second data transfer line TL2 can be greater than the first data transfer rate DTR1 of each individual first data transfer line TL1. Therefore, Song does in fact teach the limitation as claimed as the data rate mismatch is not only achieved by simply changing the number of data transfer lines. Applicant further argues that Song only teaches the second data transfer rate being an even multiple of the first data transfer rate. Examiner agrees that Song only teaches the second data rate being an even multiple of the first data rate giving examples of two, four, or eight times greater than the first data transfer rate. However, that teaching is sufficient to cover the claimed ratio of greater than 5:1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as presented. Thus, Keeth in view of Song and Rubin, does teach amended claims 9 and 15 under a broadest reasonable interpretation as laid out in the rejections of claims 9, 14, 15 and 20 in the Non-Final Office Action dated March 20, 2026. Therefore, the rejection of claims 9 and 15 as obvious over Keeth in view of Song and Rubin are maintained.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10-13, and 16-19 (See Applicant’s response, page 11, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”), Applicant argues that all remaining claims should be allowed for the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 15. However, as claims 1, 9, and 15 are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10-13, and 16-19 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated March 20, 2026 are maintained.
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 ETHAN ALEXANDER TUTTLE whose telephone number is (571)272-7055. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/E.A.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights