DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
3. This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed 02/02/2026 in response to PTO Office Action mailed 10/01/2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results that follow.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s argument with respect to amended independent claims has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are summarized as:
1) Edwards does not disclose "flow-control circuitry configured to transmit data through the link, from the first node to the second node, at a designated frequency corresponding to the lowest of three maximum frequencies ... comprising: a first maximum frequency" of "the first node ...; a second maximum frequency" of "the link," and "a third maximum frequency" of "the second node," as recited in claims 1, 8 and 15.
As per argument 1, in response to applicant’s argument that Edwards does not disclose the mentioned claim limitation above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Edwards (Figs. 2-3 & par. [0025-0032] disclose the claimed “flow-control circuitry” as local PHY circuit 210 connected to A PHY circuit may connect a link layer device (e.g., a Media Access Control, or MAC address) to a physical medium such as an optical fiber or copper cable (e.g., cable 115) (par. [0022]) so data is transferred between local device 105 and remote device 110. Edwards disclose that local device 105, remote device 110 and a cable 115 may operate at other rates and are not limited to the aforementioned rates (par. [0026-0029]). As a result, Edwards discloses the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0172110 A1 hereinafter “Edwards” – IDS Submission).
Referring to claim 1, Edwards discloses a device (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0020] disclose a communication system 100.) comprising:
a first node (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0020] disclose a local device 105.);
a second node (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0020] disclose a remote device 110.);
a link (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0018-0019] disclose a cable 115.); and
flow-control circuitry configured to transmit data through the link, from the first node to the second node (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0025-0032] disclose a local PHY 210 configured to transmit data through the cable 115 from local device 105 to the remote device 110.), at a designated frequency corresponding to the lowest of three maximum frequencies, the three maximum frequencies comprising: a first maximum frequency at which the first node is predicted to be able to release data; a second maximum frequency at which data is predicted to be able to pass through the link from the first node to the second node; and a third maximum frequency at which the second node is predicted to be able to receive data (Edwards – Figs. 2-3 & see par. [0012, 0025-0032]).
Referring to claim 2, Edwards discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first node is a first die and the second node is a second die within an integrated circuit (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0021] disclose local processor 205 and remote processor 225 may each comprise an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC). An ASIC may comprise an integrated circuit (IC) customized for a particular use, rather than intended for general-purpose use. Moreover, local processor 205 and remote processor 225 may each comprise a central processing unit (CPU). A CPU may comprise a hardware chip within a computer that carries out instructions of a computer program by performing basic arithmetical, logical, and input/output operations.).
Referring to claim 4, Edwards discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the flow-control circuitry is located on the first node (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0022] disclose the local PHY 210 on local device 105.).
Referring to claim 5, Edwards discloses the device of claim 1, wherein: at least one of the first, second, or third maximum frequencies are dynamic frequencies; and the flow-control circuitry is configured to determine the designated frequency in real-time (Edwards – Par. [0016] discloses modify a 10 G physical layer (PHY) circuit to support any data rate between 10 M to 10 G using 802.3 10 GE constellation/coding and adding new speed support in auto-neg messages. The new scheme, consistent with embodiments of the disclosure, may use 10 G training to establish a data rate speed using new auto-neg messages and may dynamically adjust a reference clock to the negotiated data rate.).
Referring to claim 8, Edwards discloses a system (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0020] disclose a communication system 100.) comprising:
a physical memory (Edwards – Par. [0046] disclose hard disks.);
a first node (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0020] disclose a local device 105.) configured to transfer data to a second node (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0020] disclose a remote device 110.) via a link (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0018-0019] disclose a cable 115.); and
flow-control circuitry (Edwards – Fig. 2 & par. [0025-0032] disclose a local PHY 210 configured to transmit data through the cable 115 from local device 105 to the remote device 110.) configured to regulate a rate of data transfer from the first node to the second node by setting the transfer rate to a rate that corresponds to the lowest of three rates, the three rates comprising a first rate at which the first node is predicted to be able to release data, a second rate at which data is predicted to be able to pass through the link from the first node to the second node, and a third rate at which the second node is predicted to be able to receive data (Edwards – Figs. 2-3 & see par. [0012, 0025-0032]).
Referring to claim 9 and 18, note the rejections of claims 2 and 3 above. The Instant Claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected and is therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Referring to claim 11, note the rejections of claim 4 above. The Instant Claim recites substantially same limitations as the above-rejected and is therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Referring to claim 12 and 17, note the rejections of claim 5 above. The Instant Claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected and is therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Referring to claim 15, note the rejections of claims 1 and 8 above. The Instant Claim recites substantially same limitations as the above-rejected and is therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Referring to claim 16, Edwards discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising: determining the lowest of the three maximum frequencies; and in response to determining the lowest of the three maximum frequencies, setting the designated frequency at the lowest of the three maximum frequencies (Edwards – Figs. 2-3 & see par. [0012, 0025-0032]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Kamgaing et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0296823 A1 hereinafter “Kamgaing”).
Referring to claim 3, Edwards discloses the device of claim 1, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first node is a first socket, corresponding to a first die on a printed circuit board, and the second node is a second socket, corresponding to a second die on the printed circuit board.
Kamgaing discloses the first node is a first socket, corresponding to a first die on a printed circuit board (Kamgaing – Fig. 6 & par. [0048-0049] disclose the left side having a socket 670 corresponding to a first die 610 on a printed circuit board (PCB) 650.), and the second node is a second socket, corresponding to a second die on the printed circuit board (Kamgaing – Fig. 6 & par. [0048-0049] disclose the right side having a socket 670 corresponding to a first die 610 on a printed circuit board (PCB) 650.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Kamgaing’s teachings with Edwards’ techniques for making it desirable for two or more of the microelectronic packages to communicate at data speeds in the order of 10s to 1000s of gigabits per second (Gbps) (Kamgaing – par. [0022]).
Referring to claim 10, note the rejections of claim 3 above. The Instant Claim recites substantially same limitations as the above-rejected and is therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
10. Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Govindaraju et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0095535 A1 hereinafter “Govindaraju”).
Referring to claim 6, Edwards discloses the device of claim 1, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the flow-control circuitry transmits data from the first node to the second node by transmitting data from Transmit-Data-First-in-First-Out (TxFIFO) storage of the first node to Receive-Data-First-in-First-Out (RxFIFO) storage of the second node.
Govindaraju discloses wherein the flow-control circuitry transmits data from the first node to the second node by transmitting data from Transmit-Data-First-in-First-Out (TxFIFO) storage of the first node to Receive-Data-First-in-First-Out (RxFIFO) storage of the second node (Govindaraju – Fig. 4 & par. [0029] disclose data packets are transferred using the SEND FIFO buffer 561 of node 510 at the sender side and the RECEIVE FIFO buffer 572 of node 520 at the receiver side of the transfer. Data to be transferred from node 510 to node 520 are placed in the SEND FIFO buffer 561 of node 510. Such data is then sent by the network adapter 531 over network 580 to the RECEIVE FIFO buffer 572 at the receiving node 520.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Govindaraju’s teachings with Edwards’ techniques for providing an improved system and method having improved efficiency for transferring data of non-standard size, e.g., non-cache line aligned data, between nodes of a network, to permit a reduction in latency and an increase in bandwidth for such transfers (Govindaraju – par. [0007]).
Referring to claim 13 and 19, note the rejections of claim 6 above. The Instant Claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected and is therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 7, 14 and 20 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.
The examiner finds that the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and/or fairly suggest “wherein the flow-control circuitry is further configured to reduce the frequency at which subsequent data is transmitted, through the link from the first node to the second node, in response to determining that an amount of data that has accumulated, at the RxFIFO storage of the second node, exceeds a threshold.”, in combination with other recited limitations in dependent claim 7.
The examiner finds that the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and/or fairly suggest “wherein the flow-control circuitry is further configured to reduce the rate at which subsequent data is transmitted, through the link from the first node to the second node, in response to determining that an amount of data that has accumulated, at the RxFIFO storage of the second node, exceeds a threshold.”, in combination with other recited limitations in dependent claim 14.
The examiner finds that the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and/or fairly suggest “reducing the frequency at which subsequent data is transmitted, through the link from the first node to the second node, in response to determining that above a threshold amount of data has accumulated at the RxFIFO storage of the second node.”, in combination with other recited limitations in dependent claim 20.
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 extension fee 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 DAYTON LEWIS-TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-7754. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 8AM TO 4PM, EASTERN TIME.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Idriss Alrobaye, can be reached on 571-270-1023. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAYTON LEWIS-TAYLOR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2181
/Farley Abad/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181