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 December 30th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 1st, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been fully considered. The previous rejections set forth in the prior Office action have been withdrawn in light of the claim amendments and/or applicant’s arguments, which have been found persuasive with respect to the prior art previously relied upon. However, upon further consideration of the amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made under 35 USC § 103 (see below).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed December 30th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 7 and 14 under 35 USC § 112, and claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 under 35 USC § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made for claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 (see below).
During the telephonic interview of December 29th, 2025, Examiner acknowledged that the cited references of the previous office action did not fully address certain limitations of the independent claims. In response, an update search has been conducted, and the rejection has been revised to include additional references that address the amended claim limitations.
As discussed below, the combination of Lai et al. (US 9,325,420), in view of Sovenyi (US 7,639,598), and further in view of Huang et al. (US 7,864,718), teach or suggest the limitations of the independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, it reads “substate”, it should read “substrate”.
In claim 15, line 4, it reads “substate”, it should read “substrate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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 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 1-3, 7-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 9,325,420), hereinafter Lai, in view of Sovenyi (US 7,639,598), and further in view of Huang et al. (US 7,864,718), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a first device (Lai, Fig. 1, electro-optical transceiver device 102) comprising:
a transceiver to communicate with a second device (Lai, Fig. 1, logic device [LD] 108, light source [LS] 110, amplifier device [AD] 112, and photodetector [PD] 114 together function as a transceiver; col. 4, lines 14-24, “the electro-optical transceiver device 102 may be accessed by a first device [e.g., a processor or a memory, as illustrative examples] that is attached to the circuit board 104. The first device may use the electro-optical transceiver device 102 to communicate information. For example, the first device may use the LD 108 and the LS 110 to send information [e.g., to a second device attached to the circuit board 104]. As another example, the first device may use the AD 112 and the PD 114 to receive information [e.g., from the second device]. The second device may use a second electro-optical transceiver device 122 to communicate with the first device”) over an interposer coupled to a substate [interpreted as “substrate”], the interposer comprising a plurality of conductive traces between respective transceivers of the first device and the second device (Lai, col. 6, lines 1-3, "in the example of FIG.1, the substrate 106 may integrate certain components such as one or more interconnections [e.g., the traces 118, 120]").
Lai fails to teach control logic, coupled to the transceiver, configured to: send first data to the second device over a single conductive trace of the plurality of conductive traces; simultaneously receive second data from the second device over the single conductive trace; and extract the second data from a combined signal comprising the first data and the second data.
However, Sovenyi, in an analogous art, teaches send first data to the second device over a single conductive trace of the plurality of conductive traces (Sovenyi, col. 2, lines 64-66, “A system for achieving simultaneous, full-duplex communication between two terminals over a single electrical conductor”); and simultaneously receive second data from the second device over the single conductive trace (Sovenyi, col. 2, lines 66-67 through col. 3, lines 1-8, “according to the invention comprises a first transceiver terminal T1 having a first input for receiving a first signal x, and a second transceiver terminal T2 having a second input for receiving a second signal y. A first communication circuit C1 in T1 is disposed between the first input and a point A for transmitting a signal representative of x from A to T2 over the single electrical conductor, and a second communication circuit C2 in T2 is disposed between the second input and a point B for transmitting a signal representative of y from B to T1 over the single electrical conductor”).
Lai and Sovenyi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of communication systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Sovenyi by including the functionality of sending data to a second device over a single conductive trace and simultaneously receive second data from the device.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to reduce the number of cables needed to transfer information between multiple terminals and transfer information at a higher rate (Sovenyi, col. 2, lines 45-49, “Use of the transceivers reduces the number of cables necessary for transferring information between two or more terminals at a given rate. Alternatively, they can transfer information at a higher rate than traditional circuits across the same number of cables”).
The combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi, taken singly or combined, fails to teach extract the second data from a combined signal comprising the first data and the second data.
However, Huang, in an analogous art teaches extract the second data from a combined signal comprising the first data and the second data (Huang, col. 2, lines 41-44, “receiving the receive signal from the receiver; and canceling the echo of the receive signal according to the echo cancellation signal to generate an echo-cancelled signal”; canceling the echo of the receive signal equates to subtracting or extracting data from a combined signal).
Lai, Sovenyi, and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of communication systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi to incorporate the teachings of Huang by including the functionality of extracting second data from a combined signal comprising first and second data.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to allow for a reliable recovery of received data when transmitting and receiving data simultaneously.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi, further in view of Huang, teaches the first device of claim 1, wherein the control logic is further configured to: subtract a waveform associated with the first data from a waveform associated with the second data to extract the second data from the combined signal (Huang, Abstract, lines 9-14, "a calculation module coupled to the transmitter, the receiver, and the echo cancellation signal generator for receiving the receive signal and for canceling the echo of the receive signal according to the echo cancellation signal to generate an echo cancelled signal"; the step of canceling the echo of the received signal according to the echo cancellation signal equates to subtracting or removing a waveform of the transmitted data to isolate the desired data; col. 1, lines 65-67, “The conventional echo cancellation device is employed to generate an echo cancellation signal corresponding to the transmit signal. As such, the echo cancellation signal is ½ Vi and is followed by a subtractor to cancel the effect caused by the transmit signal in order to achieve echo cancellation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi to incorporate the teachings of Huang by including the functionality extracting data from a combined signal via subtracting a waveform.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to remove unwanted data found in the transmitted signal (Huang, col. 1, lines 65-67, “The conventional echo cancellation device is employed to generate an echo cancellation signal corresponding to the transmit signal. As such, the echo cancellation signal is ½ Vi and is followed by a subtractor to cancel the effect caused by the transmit signal in order to achieve echo cancellation”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi, further in view of Huang, teaches the first device of claim 1, wherein the control logic is further configured to: generate an inverse waveform associated with the first data; and combine the inverse waveform with a waveform associated with the second data to extract the second data from the combined signal.
However, Huang, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the control logic is further configured to: generate an inverse waveform associated with the first data; and combine the inverse waveform with a waveform associated with the second data to extract the second data from the combined signal (Huang, Abstract, lines 4-7, "an echo cancellation signal generator, coupled to the transmitter, for receiving the transmit signal and for generating an echo cancellation signal according to the transmit signal"; the transmitted signal equates to a first data waveform, generating an echo cancellation signal is essentially an inverse waveform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi to incorporate the teachings of Huang by including the functionality extracting data from a combined signal via generating an inverse waveform and combining it with data.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to cancel out unwanted data in order to recover the desired data.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi, further in view of Huang, teaches the first device of claim 1, wherein the control logic is further configured to calibrate the transceiver by performing operations that comprise: generating a first combined waveform comprising third data generated by the first device and fourth data generated by the second device; generating a second combined waveform comprising fifth data generated by the first device and sixth data generated by the second device; determining a delta value between the first combined waveform and the second combined waveform; and determining a corrective waveform to apply to the second combined waveform (Huang, col. 4, lines 46-53, "the echo cancellation signal generator 540 is a digital low pass filter as shown in FIG. 4, the echo cancellation device can utilize the control signal to dynamically adjust the finite impulse response (FIR) coefficients or the infinite impulse response (IIR) coefficients of the digital low pass filter according to the different characteristics of the circuit components and the network environment in order to obtain optimal echo cancellation performance"; teaches adapting the echo canceler that adjust coefficients of a control signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi to incorporate the teachings of Huang by including the functionality of generating combined waveforms, determining a delta value between two combined waveforms, and determining a corrective waveform to apply to one of the combined waveforms.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to more precisely eliminate unwanted data, or noise, from the transmitted signal (Huang, col. 4, lines 36-45, " the values will fluctuate and change when transmitting/receiving data. In order to more precisely eliminate the echo in the second embodiment of the present invention, the echo' cancellation device further comprises an echo residue detector 510 for detecting the echo residue at the receiver section. The echo residue detector 510 generates a control signal according to the detected echo residue and outputs the control signal to the echo cancellation signal generator 540 in order to form a feedback loop").
Claim 8 is a method with limitations similar to the device of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is a method with limitations similar to the device of claim 2, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is a method with limitations similar to the device of claim 3, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is a system with limitations similar to the device of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is a system with limitations similar to the device of claim 2, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is a system with limitations similar to the device of claim 3, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai, in view of Sovenyi, further in view of Huang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 12,107,680), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi, further in view of Huang teaches the first device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the control logic is further configured to: perform one or more error correcting operations on a waveform obtained from the combined signal.
However, Wang, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the control logic is further configured to: perform one or more error correcting operations on a waveform obtained from the combined signal (Wang, col. 1, lines 57-59, "In general, techniques are described for monitoring burst errors in a forward error correction (FEC) frame transmitted in an optical signal").
Lai, Sovenyi, Huang, and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of communicating signals between devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi, further in view of Huang, to incorporate the teachings of Wang by including the functionality of performing error correction on the waveform .
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to improve receiver sensitivity and increase transmission distance of signals (Wang, col. 5, lines 1-9, "Noise is present on any communication channel, either electrical or optical. Degradation in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) will lead to errors within signals that may not be recoverable. Further, retransmitting corrupted signals requires time and resource allocation, leading to increasing costs. To combat this problem, forward error correction (FEC) is widely used to improve receiver sensitivity and increase transmission distance of signals over an optical network").
Claim 11 is a method with limitations similar to the device of claim 4, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is a system with limitations similar to the device of claim 4, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai, in view of Sovenyi, further in view of Huang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saibi et al. (US 2011/0317564), hereinafter Saibi.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi, further in view of Huang teaches the first device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the control logic is further configured to: configure, during a boot process, the transceiver to remove additional signal added to the combined signal during transmission.
However, Saibi, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the control logic is further configured to: configure, during a boot process, the transceiver to remove additional signal added to the combined signal during transmission (Saibi, para. [0034], "With the parameter setting stored, further parameters may be tested, either sequentially or in parallel. Once the testing is complete, the transceiver 100 exits the calibration mode, and enters a field operation mode for normal duplex operation, at step 318. Normal duplex mode generally involves transmitting and receiving data consistent with the determined calibration parameters, at 320. The echo cancellers used in the calibration operation to generate the noise and distortion samples are then reused in the duplex mode to filter echo signals resulting along the analog transmit path"; the calibration mode that sets parameters used in the normal operation mode to filter echo signals, or remove echo signals, occurs before normal operation, therefore occurring during a boot process).
Lai, Sovenyi, Huang, and Saibi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of communicating signals between devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Lai in view of Sovenyi, further in view of Huang, to incorporate the teachings of Saibi by including the functionality of configuring the transceiver to remove additional signals during a boot process.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to further filter the data (Saibi, para. [0034], "With the parameter setting stored, further parameters may be tested, either sequentially or in parallel. Once the testing is complete, the transceiver 100 exits the calibration mode, and enters a field operation mode for normal duplex operation, at step 318. Normal duplex mode generally involves transmitting and receiving data consistent with the determined calibration parameters, at 320. The echo cancellers used in the calibration operation to generate the noise and distortion samples are then reused in the duplex mode to filter echo signals resulting along the analog transmit path").
Claim 13 is a method with limitations similar to the device of claim 6, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is a system with limitations similar to the device of claim 6, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GRACE V BRADEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM-5:30 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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
/G.V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112