DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of CN 202010622485.3, CN 202010792434.5, PCT/CN2021/103791, and 18/147852 filed 6/30/2020, 8/9/2020, 6/30/2021, and 12/29/2022, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/14/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,040,996. Examiner maps Claim 1 to Claim 3 of the patent below. The additional features of the instant dependent claims appear in the dependent claims of the prior patent. The other independent claims are similarly situated to the below mapping and rejected in the same manner.
Instant Claim 1
Claim 1 of ‘996
Notes
1. A chip module, comprising: a plurality of first ports, wherein at least some of the plurality of first ports are first selection ports that can be configured as a read port or a write port;
1. A chip module, comprising: a plurality of first ports, wherein at least some of the plurality of first ports are first selection ports that can be configured as a read port or a write port;
Same.
and a first control module configured to obtain a required quantity of write ports and a required quantity of read ports,
2. The chip module according to claim 1, wherein the first control module is further configured to: obtain a required ratio of write ports to read ports as the target ratio based on the transmit/receive requirement of the chip module,
3. The chip module according to claim 2, wherein the first control module is further configured to: obtain a required quantity and locations of write ports and a required quantity and locations of read ports based on the transmit/receive requirement of the chip module;
Same except the patent limits the port requirement to be in the form of ratios and also include locations, so the instant claims are less limited.
and compare the required quantity of write ports and the required quantity of read ports with a current quantity of write ports and a current quantity read ports,
and compare the required quantity and the locations of write ports and the required quantity and the locations of read ports with a current quantity and locations of write ports and a current quantity and locations of read ports,
Same except the patent limits the requirement to be in the form of ratios and also include locations, so the instant claims are less limited.
to determine whether at least one first selection port needs to be switched.
and determine the current ratio of write ports to read ports in the chip module.
to determine the at least one first selection port that needs to be switched.
Same except the patent limits the requirement to be in the form of ratios and also include locations, so the instant claims are less limited.
and a first control module configured to control, based on a transmit/receive requirement of the chip module, at least one of the first selection ports to be switched to a read port or a write port to match the transmit/receive requirement of the chip module, wherein when a current ratio is different from a target ratio, the first control module is configured to control the at least one first selection port to be switched to a read port or a write port, until a ratio of read ports to write ports of the chip module is consistent with the target ratio.
The patent requires actually switching, which is a dependent feature in the instant claimset.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a first control module configured to [do functions]” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 depends from Claim 10 which depends from Claim 9. The text of Claim 12 is the same as that of Claim 9, and therefore does not further the claim scope of Claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching (US Pub. 2005/0165970) in view of Bains (US Pub. 2007/0130374).
With respect to Claim 1, Ching teaches a chip module, comprising: (Fig. 1, para. 28; electronic component 110 can be an integrated circuit)
a plurality of first ports, (The contacts being within a plurality of ports will be taught later. para. 38; plurality of contacts 116 such as a pin)
wherein at least some of the plurality of first ports are first selection ports that can be configured as a read port or a write port; (Write/read ports will be taught later. paras. 38-42; contacts create signal lines which can include transmission and reception signal lines to transmit to or receive from component 120)
and a first control module configured to obtain a required quantity of write ports and a required quantity of read ports, and compare the required quantity of write ports and the required quantity of read ports with a current quantity of write ports and a current quantity read ports, to determine whether at least one first selection port needs to be switched. (para. 47; Bandwidth allocation control logic generates control signals to configure interfaces. Paras. 51-52; BAC logic defines how many transceivers are configured for transmit and how many are configured for reception (such as ½ transmit, ½ receive or ¾ transmit, ¼ receive) and sends control signals to configure the transceivers appropriately. The configuration may be made based on received/transmitted packets. Para. 57; Absolute values or min/max values for transceivers operating in a particular mode. Para. 59; a ½ transmit, ½ receive interface then makes a determination as to the intended configuration of the interface, and an appropriate number of transceivers are configured. Paras. 62-64; controlling number of write interfaces based on transmit queue depth.)
But Ching does not explicitly teach a plurality of first ports.
Bains, however, does teach a plurality of first ports (Fig. 3, para. 33; plurality of ports creating a plurality of interconnects between devices.)
Read port or a write port (para. 22; data port may be for write or read transactions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the chip module of Ching with the plurality of ports in order to control multiple ports to meet bandwidth needs. (Bains, para. 26)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Ching teaches the chip module according to claim 1, and Ching also teaches wherein the first control module is further configured to: determine that at least one first selection port needs to be switched, (Paras. 51-52; BAC logic defines how many transceivers are configured for transmit and how many are configured for reception (such as ½ transmit, ½ receive or ¾ transmit, ¼ receive) and sends control signals to configure the transceivers appropriately. The configuration may be made based on received/transmitted packets. Para. 57; Absolute values or min/max values for transceivers operating in a particular mode. Para. 59; a ½ transmit, ½ receive interface then makes a determination as to the intended configuration of the interface, and an appropriate number of transceivers are configured.)
and switch the at least one first selection port based on the required quantity of write ports and the required quantity of read ports. (paras. 51-52, 57, 59; reconfiguration where the number of transceivers only transmitting or only receiving is reallocated.)
With respect to Claim 3, modified Ching teaches the chip module according to claim 1, and Ching also teaches wherein each of the at least one first selection port comprises: a first connection port, (para. 38; contact 116a)
a first receiving circuit, a first sending circuit, (para. 40; transceiver 115a includes both transmit and receive circuits)
and a first selector switch; the first connection port is connected to one of the first receiving circuit and the first sending circuit by using the first selector switch; (paras. 40, 47; BAC logic sends control signals to a programmable register for the transceivers which determines the mode of operation for the transceiver.)
when the first receiving circuit is connected to the first connection port, the first selection port is configured as a write port; and when the first sending circuit is connected to the first connection port, the first selection port is configured as a read port. (para. 41-42; transmit and receive modes.)
With respect to Claim 5, Ching teaches a communication system, comprising: a first chip module and a second chip module, (Fig. 1, para. 28; Electronic components 110/120. Electronic component 110 can be an integrated circuit.)
wherein the first chip module comprises: a plurality of first ports, (The contacts being within a plurality of ports will be taught later. para. 38; plurality of contacts such as a pin)
wherein at least some of the plurality of first ports are first selection ports that can be configured as a read port or a write port, (Write/read ports will be taught later. paras. 38-42; contacts create signal lines which can include transmission and reception signal lines to transmit to or receive from component 120)
and a first control module configured to obtain a required quantity of write ports and a required quantity of read ports, and compare the required quantity of write ports and the required quantity of read ports with a current quantity of write ports and a current quantity read ports, to determine least one first selection port that needs to be switched; (para. 47; Bandwidth allocation control logic generates control signals to configure interfaces. Paras. 51-52; BAC logic defines how many transceivers are configured for transmit and how many are configured for reception (such as ½ transmit, ½ receive or ¾ transmit, ¼ receive) and sends control signals to configure the transceivers appropriately. The configuration may be made based on received/transmitted packets. Para. 57; Absolute values or min/max values for transceivers operating in a particular mode. Para. 59; a ½ transmit, ½ receive interface then makes a determination as to the intended configuration of the interface, and an appropriate number of transceivers are configured. Paras. 62-64; controlling number of write interfaces based on transmit queue depth.)
wherein the first ports of the first chip module and a plurality of second ports of the second chip module are connected in a one-to-one correspondence. (Fig. 1, para. 39; signal lines are the connections between 116a-n and 126a-n)
But Ching does not explicitly teach a plurality of ports.
But Ching does not explicitly teach a plurality of first ports.
Bains, however, does teach a plurality of first ports (Fig. 3, para. 33; plurality of ports creating a plurality of interconnects between devices.)
Read port or a write port (para. 22; data port may be for write or read transactions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Ching with the plurality of ports in order to control multiple ports to meet bandwidth needs. (Bains, para. 26)
With respect to Claim 6, modified Ching teaches the communication system according to claim 5, and Ching also teaches wherein the second chip module further comprises a second control module, (Fig. 1, para. 40; control signals sent to both electronic components. Para. 47; BAC may be included in either component or may be implemented in a virtual manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to separate the functionality of the control of both components 110/120 and instead have each component have its own BAC with similar control logic to control its component. Making separable is obvious, see MPEP 2144.04.)
wherein at least some of the plurality of second ports are second selection ports; (paras. 38-42; plurality of contacts 126 where the contacts create signal lines which can include transmission and reception signal lines to transmit to or receive from component 110)
and the second control module is configured to control, based on a transmit/receive requirement of a peer chip module paired with the second chip module, (paras. 51-52; reconfiguration of transceivers. paras. 40, 47; Transceiver 115a includes both transmit and receive circuits. BAC logic sends control signals to a programmable register for the transceivers which determines the mode of operation for the transceiver. Fig. 1, para. 40; control signals sent to both electronic components. Para. 28; electronic component 110 may be a master device.)
at least one second selection port to be switched to a read port or a write port. (paras. 51-52, 57, 59; reconfiguration where the number of transceivers only transmitting or only receiving is reallocated.)
With respect to Claim 7, Ching teaches a port allocation method, comprising: obtaining a required quantity of write ports and a required quantity of read ports; and comparing the required quantity of write ports and the required quantity of read ports with a current quantity of write ports and a current quantity of read ports, to determine whether at least one first selection port needs to be switched; (The application to write/read ports will be taught later. para. 47; Bandwidth allocation control logic generates control signals to configure interfaces. Paras. 51-52; BAC logic defines how many transceivers are configured for transmit and how many are configured for reception (such as ½ transmit, ½ receive or ¾ transmit, ¼ receive) and sends control signals to configure the transceivers appropriately. The configuration may be made based on received/transmitted packets. Para. 57; Absolute values or min/max values for transceivers operating in a particular mode. Para. 59; a ½ transmit, ½ receive interface then makes a determination as to the intended configuration of the interface, and an appropriate number of transceivers are configured. Paras. 62-64; controlling number of write interfaces based on transmit queue depth.)
and switching the at least one first selection port of a chip module to a read port or a write port. (paras. 51-52, 57, 59; reconfiguration where the number of transceivers only transmitting or only receiving is reallocated.)
But Ching does not explicitly teach ports.
Bains, however, does teach ports (Fig. 3, para. 33; plurality of ports creating a plurality of interconnects between devices.)
Write ports, read ports (para. 22; data port may be for write or read transactions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Ching with the plurality of ports in order to control multiple ports to meet bandwidth needs. (Bains, para. 26)
With respect to Claim 8, it is substantially similar to Claim 2, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ching (US Pub. 2005/0165970) in view of Bains (US Pub. 2007/0130374) and further in view of Pandey (US Pub. 2008/0275975).
With respect to Claim 4, modified Ching teaches the chip module according to claim 1, and Ching also teaches wherein the first control module is further configured to: send a switching indication message to a peer chip module paired with the chip module, (paras. 51-52; reconfiguration of transceivers. paras. 40, 47; Transceiver 115a includes both transmit and receive circuits. BAC logic sends control signals to a programmable register for the transceivers which determines the mode of operation for the transceiver. Fig. 1, para. 40; control signals sent to both electronic components. Para. 28; electronic component 110 may be a master device.)
But modified Ching does not explicitly teach a completion indication message.
Pandey, however, does teach and receive a switching completion indication message fed back by the peer chip module. (paras. 83-84, 91; periodic port status message that indicates the status of a port. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to include a configuration of the port as a status of the port in order to confirm to the control algorithm what ports are transmitting/receiving to allow for proper port allocation calculation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the chip module of modified Ching with the port status message in order to report the port status to other devices.
With respect to Claim 9, it is substantially similar to Claim 4, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 10, modified Ching teaches the port allocation method according to claim 9, and Ching also teaches further comprising: when a current ratio of write ports to read ports is less than a target ratio, controlling at least some of first selection ports acting as read ports to be switched to write ports; or when the current ratio is greater than the target ratio, controlling at least some of the first selection ports acting as write ports to be switched to read ports. (paras. 27, 52; ratio of transmit to receive packets in order to control transmit/receive profile. Reconfiguring from ½ transmit, ½ receive to ¾ transmit and ¼ receive. Further, Examiner notes that a ratio is simply a different way of describing absolute values of modes, see para. 57; absolute and min/max amounts of operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to describe the configuration in terms of ratios rather than absolute values because ratios are a substitute known method of describing states. paras. 51-52, 57, 59; reconfiguration where the number of transceivers only transmitting or only receiving is reallocated.)
With respect to Claim 11, it is substantially similar to Claim 3, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 12, it is substantially similar to Claim 4, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449