CTNF 18/675,643 CTNF 83100 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 14, 2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das Sharma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0334995 A1), hereafter referred to as DasSharma’995 in view of DODDI et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0021504 A1), hereafter referred to as DODDI’504 . Referring to claim 1, DasSharma’995, as claimed, a first device ( two link partner devices to be couple using a UCIe link, see para. [0074] ) comprising: first circuitry to communicate with a second device over a first die-to-die (D2D) link ( mainband connection provide the main data path, see para. [0076] ); second circuitry to communicate with the second device over a second D2D link ( sideband connection, see para. [0076] ); and a link controller comprises logic to: send first configuration data to the second device over the first D2D link ( logic to implement arbitration and multiplexor functionality, error detection/correction codes, coordinating higher level link state machine and link bring up protocols, protocol options related to parameter exchanges with remote link partner, power management coordination with remote link partner, etc. (see paras. [0074] and [0075] ); and send second configuration data to the second device over the second D2D link ( sideband connection can be used for parameter exchanges, register accesses for debug/compliance, and coordination with remote partner for link training and management, see paras. [0076], [0104], and [0106] ). However, DasSharma’995 does explicitly teach receive an indication that the first configuration data failed to configure the second device and responsive to receiving the indication, send second configuration data over the second D2D link. DODDI’504 discloses the receive an indication that the first configuration data failed to configure the second device and responsive to receiving the indication, send second configuration data over the second D2D link ( a main band is configured using a sideband to exchange configuration parameters, e.g. in a main band initialization. This may be followed by training to configure the main band, see paras. [0024], [0026], and [0041]; the repair clock state allows for training patterns to be sent and received between the module and module partner to test the clock connections through the connection. The repair valid state is used to train the valid line. The repair main band state is a training state of the main band data communication in which known patterns are transmitted on the data lines to teach each data lane for proper operation. Each data lane is tested in both the transmit data line and the receive data line. Upon detecting a faulty data line in either direction through the repair main band state, then the data link width may be modified to exclude the faulty data line and reconfigures a redundant data line as a data line, see paras. [0048]-[0056], [0070, [0112], Figs. 4 and 5 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DasSharma’995’s invention to comprise receive an indication that the first configuration data failed to configure the second device and responsive to receiving the indication, send second configuration data over the second D2D link, as taught by DODDI’504, in order to configure/repair the main band using a sideband to exchange configuration parameters, thereby maintaining operability and/or and expanded data link widths (see paras. [0024] and [0032]) . As to claim 2, DasSharma’995 also discloses the first D2D link is configured to transmit data at a higher data transfer rate than the second D2D link ( mainband connection has a faster data transfer rate than a sideband connection, see paras. [0076], [0087], and Figs. 12A-B ). As to claim 3, DasSharma’995 also discloses the second D2D link comprises a pair of data wires and a pair of clock wires ( a forwarded clock pin and a data pin in each direction, see paras. [0076] and [0079] ). As to claim 4, DasSharma’995 also discloses the second configuration data comprises correction data to enable the second device to restore communication with the first device over the first D2D link ( error correction bits/bytes (e.g. CRC), see paras. [0072], [0074], [0083], and [0090] ). As to claim 5, DasSharma’995 also discloses a set of registers reserved for sending data via the second D2D link ( sideband access of registers, see paras. [0087], [0088]-[0092], [0108], Tables 1-3 ). As to claim 6, DasSharma’995 also discloses the first configuration data is sent from a first set of registers of the first device to a second set of registers of the second device and the second configuration data is sent from a third set of registers of the first device to the second set of registers ( link parameters configured/training, see paras. [0105]-[0107], Fig. 15A; also note: registers, see paras. [0087], [0088]-[0092], [0108], Tables 1-3 ). As to claim 7, DasSharma’995 also discloses the logic is further to: receive, via the second D2D link, control and status data from the second device ( sideband access of registers, parameter exchanges, register accesses for debug/compliance, and coordination with remote partner for link training and management, see paras. [0076], [0084], [0087], [0104], and [0106]; also note: control and status registers, see paras. [0088], [0089], [0091], Fig. 15A ). Note claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations of claim 1. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly. Note claims 9 and 16 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 2. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly. Note claims 10 and 17 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 3. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly. Note claims 11 and 18 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 4. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly. Note claims 12 and 19 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 5. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly. Note claims 13 and 20 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 6. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly. Note claim 14 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 7. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new grounds of rejection. In summary, DasSharma’995 and DODDI’504 teach the claimed limitations as set forth. The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c). In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITUS WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm. 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, 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 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. /TITUS WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181 Application/Control Number: 18/675,643 Page 2 Art Unit: 2181 Application/Control Number: 18/675,643 Page 3 Art Unit: 2181 Application/Control Number: 18/675,643 Page 4 Art Unit: 2181 Application/Control Number: 18/675,643 Page 5 Art Unit: 2181 Application/Control Number: 18/675,643 Page 6 Art Unit: 2181 Application/Control Number: 18/675,643 Page 7 Art Unit: 2181
Prosecution Insights