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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 15 May 2026. They have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 103. They also partially overcome the rejections based on 112(b) against certain claims, while not fully addressing issues in other claims. Additionally, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated additional grounds of rejection based on 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites a step of “overriding… droop detector signals generated by the first droop detector”. This language is open-ended and does not indicate whether the override operation is global or specific to a chiplet. The broadest reasonable interpretation may include a global override of droop detector signals generated by the first droop detector. This conflicts with claim 1, which recites activation of a second clock modulation unit of the second chiplet based on the first clock modulation enable signal. Claim 1 recites that the first clock modulation enable signal is generated in response to a droop detection at a first droop detector, and the specification teaches that the first and second clock modulation enable signals are generated by their respective droop detectors [Fig. 9: EN1 and EN2 output from droop detectors 930A and 930B]. The language of claim 6 therefore conflicts with claim 1 because it unconditionally requires overriding droop detector signals generated by the first droop detector that are clearly in use by the second chiplet.
Claims 15-20 are rejected as indefinite because there are numerous recitations of “a bypass mode” in claims 15 and 17-19. An original recitation of a bypass mode is provided in line 5 of claim 15. It is unclear whether the subsequent recitations of a bypass mode represent additional bypass modes (e.g., a bypass mode specific to a chiplet) or references to the original bypass mode. If multiple bypass modes are in view, the claims should be amended to include appropriately distinguishing language.
Claim 18 is rejected as being indefinite because it recites a "bypass mode comprising a control logic". It is unclear how a "mode" (i.e., an abstract state of operation) may comprise control logic (i.e. digital circuitry). The Examiner recommends amending claim 18 in the same manner as claims 17 and 19 (e.g., “a bypass mode than, when enabled, causes….”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 7-13 are allowed. Claims 6 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI H BAE whose telephone number is (571)272-7181. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Friday and every other Monday, 9 am to 6 pm.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/JI H BAE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: 571-272-7181
Fax: 571-273-7181
ji.bae@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights