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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are directed to “one or more machine readable media”, and the Applicant’s Specification fails to limit the term “machine readable media” to non-transitory embodiment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “machine readable media” covers both statutory embodiments and non-statutory, transitory embodiments, such as, transmission signals. The Examiner suggests limiting the claim language to statutory subject matter by distinctly claiming a ‘non-transitory machine readable media’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emerson et al. (US Pub. 2018/0239728), hereinafter referred to as Emerson.
Referring to claim 16, Emerson discloses a system (fig. 1-2) comprising: a processor (102, fig. 1); a plurality of embedded devices (endpoints 112, fig. 1); and a multi-device host controller communicatively coupled between the processor and the plurality of embedded devices, wherein the multi-device host controller is to: based on detecting a first embedded device (the virtual USB device coupled to the virtual USB host controller 110 is one provisioned, configured, and emulated by the management controller 106… virtual USB device can include, without limitation, a USB storage device, a USB human input device (e.g., keyboard or mouse), a USB display device, USB network controller (e.g., Ethernet controller), or the like, [0032]) operating according to a first communication protocol (the data bus (e.g., PCIe), [0017], [0027-0028], [0060-0061]), generate first identification information for the first embedded device based on a second communication protocol (USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint. An “armed” virtual USB device endpoint may be one that is marked (e.g., by the management controller) as being ready to transfer data…When this occurs, the virtual USB host controller can perform a data transfer according to the transfer descriptor, [0016]) and on first peripheral configuration information (information regarding the particular assignable endpoint; [0037]); and take an action to autonomously manage the first embedded device based on one or more inputs received from one or more other embedded devices of the plurality of embedded devices (assignable endpoint configuration hardware registers 218 can support configuration or operation of a particular assignable endpoint, of the plurality of assignable endpoints 216, by storing store information regarding the particular assignable endpoint. For some examples, the information stored by the plurality of assignable endpoint configuration hardware registers 218 facilitates dynamic assignment of a particular assignable endpoint 216 to a virtual USB device by the management controller 208; [0037]).
As to claim 19, Emerson discloses the second communication protocol is a Universal Serial Bus (USB) protocol ([0008], [0022]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerson in view of Moore et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0309954), hereinafter referred to as Moore.
Referring to claim 1, Emerson discloses one or more machine readable media ([0021]) comprising instructions for execution that when executed by a multi-device host controller (fig. 2, management controller 208), cause the multi-device host controller to: emulate a first embedded device of a plurality of embedded devices of a computing system (the virtual USB device coupled to the virtual USB host controller 110 is one provisioned, configured, and emulated by the management controller 106… virtual USB device can include, without limitation, a USB storage device, a USB human input device (e.g., keyboard or mouse), a USB display device, USB network controller (e.g., Ethernet controller), or the like, [0032]), wherein to emulate the first embedded device is to include generating a first descriptor based on a Universal Serial Bus (USB) protocol (USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint. An “armed” virtual USB device endpoint may be one that is marked (e.g., by the management controller) as being ready to transfer data…When this occurs, the virtual USB host controller can perform a data transfer according to the transfer descriptor, [0016]) and on peripheral configuration information (information regarding the particular assignable endpoint; [0037]), wherein the peripheral configuration information is associated with the first embedded device and pre-programmed for the multi-device host controller (assignable endpoint configuration hardware registers 218 can support configuration or operation of a particular assignable endpoint, of the plurality of assignable endpoints 216, by storing store information regarding the particular assignable endpoint. For some examples, the information stored by the plurality of assignable endpoint configuration hardware registers 218 facilitates dynamic assignment of a particular assignable endpoint 216 to a virtual USB device by the management controller 208; [0037]).
While Emerson teaches software running on a processor of the computing system relating to the USB operations, Emerson is silent regarding a software stack and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose providing the first descriptor to a software stack.
However, Moore discloses providing the first descriptor to a software stack (which returns device descriptor information 420 to USB host stack, [0033]; If additional descriptors are needed by USB host stack 901 they may be obtained, [0057]).
Emerson and Moore are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, USB system management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Emerson and Moore before him or her, to modify the USB system of Emerson to include the software stack of Moore because Emerson and Moore demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, because the software stack is a common software component of USB systems; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in predictable USB software system facilitating of the functionality between a host and device in a USB system.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Emerson and Moore to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 2, Emerson discloses the first embedded device is configured to operate according to the USB protocol (USB device, [0008]).
As to claim 5, Emerson discloses the first embedded device is physically connected to the multi-device host controller (fig. 4; the logic represented by the block diagram 400 is implemented by a management controller…block diagram 400 illustrates the eight (8) hardware registers 406 to serve as endpoint 0 (EP0) for up to eight (8) separate virtual USB devices, [0055-0056]).
As to claim 6, Emerson discloses the first descriptor is one of a device descriptor, a configuration descriptor, an interface descriptor, an endpoint descriptor (a valid USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint, [0016]), a companion descriptor, a class-specific descriptor, or a vendor-specific descriptor.
As to claim 7, Emerson discloses the instructions, when executed cause the multi-device host controller further to: determine, based on a capability indicator (An “armed” virtual USB device endpoint may be one that is marked, [0016]), whether the multi-device host controller supports autonomous device management of the first embedded device (The virtual USB host controller can execute its asynchronous and periodic transfer schedules until it finds a valid USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint…one that is marked (e.g., by the management controller) as being ready to transfer data…When this occurs, the virtual USB host controller can perform a data transfer according to the transfer descriptor; [0016]).
As to claim 8, Emerson discloses the instructions, when executed cause the multi-device host controller further to: take an action to autonomously manage the first embedded device (An “armed” virtual USB device endpoint may be one that is marked (e.g., by the management controller) as being ready to transfer data (e.g., makes a USB data transfer request ACK [acknowledged] instead of NAK [not acknowledged]). When this occurs, the virtual USB host controller can perform a data transfer according to the transfer descriptor; [0016]) based on one or more inputs received from one or more other embedded devices connected to the multi-device host controller (the management controller can process incoming USB data requests, formulate or obtain USB data responses, and point the corresponding virtual USB device…The virtual USB host controller can execute its asynchronous and periodic transfer schedules until it finds a valid USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint; [0016]).
As to claim 9, while Emerson discloses the multi-device host controller further to configure the first embedded device (management controller can also manage a pool of flex endpoints (also referred to herein as assignable endpoints) each of which can be selectively assigned and mapped to a virtual USB device for use as one its endpoints, [0018]), Emerson does not appear to explicitly disclose the multi-device host controller further to: receive a first communication from the software stack requesting a configuration change to the first embedded device; and configure the first embedded device based at least in part on the first communication.
However, Moore discloses receiving a first communication from the software stack requesting a configuration change to the first embedded device; and configure the first embedded device based at least in part on the first communication (In order for initial USB host 110 and initial USB device 130 of FIG. 1 to switch roles, a protocol or other communication is needed…a status change (attach) message 414 to USB host stack 400…determines that role switching is possible and appropriate…Once a determination is made by initial USB host 110 that role switching is possible and appropriate, USB host stack 400 issues a role switch message…sending a detach message 428 to USB host stack 400…causing USB device stack 402 to transition to an active state; [0032-0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Emerson and Moore before him or her, to modify the USB device system of Emerson to include the configuration switching taught by Moore because switching would provide the system flexibility among the connected devices.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been enable devices to dynamically reconfigure roles (Moore: [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Emerson and Moore to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Referring to claim 11, Emerson discloses an apparatus (fig. 1-2), comprising: an integrated circuit (application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) implementing the management controller, [0009]) that, when coupled between an embedded device (endpoints 112, fig. 1) of a computing system and a processor (102, fig. 1) of the computing system, is to: detect a first embedded device of a plurality of embedded devices connected to the integrated circuit (the virtual USB device coupled to the virtual USB host controller 110 is one provisioned, configured, and emulated by the management controller 106… virtual USB device can include, without limitation, a USB storage device, a USB human input device (e.g., keyboard or mouse), a USB display device, USB network controller (e.g., Ethernet controller), or the like, [0032]); emulate the first embedded device (the virtual USB device coupled to the virtual USB host controller 110 is one provisioned, configured, and emulated by the management controller 106… virtual USB device can include, without limitation, a USB storage device, a USB human input device (e.g., keyboard or mouse), a USB display device, USB network controller (e.g., Ethernet controller), or the like, [0032]) by generating a first descriptor based on a Universal Serial Bus (USB) protocol (USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint. An “armed” virtual USB device endpoint may be one that is marked (e.g., by the management controller) as being ready to transfer data…When this occurs, the virtual USB host controller can perform a data transfer according to the transfer descriptor, [0016]) and on first peripheral configuration information (information regarding the particular assignable endpoint; [0037]), wherein the first peripheral configuration information is associated with the first embedded device and pre-programmed in the integrated circuit (assignable endpoint configuration hardware registers 218 can support configuration or operation of a particular assignable endpoint, of the plurality of assignable endpoints 216, by storing store information regarding the particular assignable endpoint. For some examples, the information stored by the plurality of assignable endpoint configuration hardware registers 218 facilitates dynamic assignment of a particular assignable endpoint 216 to a virtual USB device by the management controller 208; [0037]).
While Emerson teaches software running on a processor of the computing system relating to the USB operations, Emerson is silent regarding a first software stack and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose providing the first descriptor to a first software stack.
However, Moore discloses providing the first descriptor to a software stack (which returns device descriptor information 420 to USB host stack, [0033]; If additional descriptors are needed by USB host stack 901 they may be obtained, [0057]).
Emerson and Moore are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, USB system management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Emerson and Moore before him or her, to modify the USB system of Emerson to include the software stack of Moore because Emerson and Moore demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, because the software stack is a common software component of USB systems; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in predictable USB software system facilitating of the functionality between a host and device in a USB system.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Emerson and Moore to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 12, Emerson discloses the integrated circuit is further to: detect a second embedded device of the plurality of embedded devices (the virtual USB device coupled to the virtual USB host controller 110 is one provisioned, configured, and emulated by the management controller 106… virtual USB device can include, without limitation, a USB storage device, a USB human input device (e.g., keyboard or mouse), a USB display device, USB network controller (e.g., Ethernet controller), or the like, [0032]); emulate the second embedded device (the virtual USB device coupled to the virtual USB host controller 110 is one provisioned, configured, and emulated by the management controller 106… virtual USB device can include, without limitation, a USB storage device, a USB human input device (e.g., keyboard or mouse), a USB display device, USB network controller (e.g., Ethernet controller), or the like, [0032]) by generating a second descriptor based on the USB protocol (USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint. An “armed” virtual USB device endpoint may be one that is marked (e.g., by the management controller) as being ready to transfer data…When this occurs, the virtual USB host controller can perform a data transfer according to the transfer descriptor, [0016]) and on second peripheral configuration information (information regarding the particular assignable endpoint; [0037]), wherein the second peripheral configuration information is associated with the second embedded device and pre-programmed in the integrated circuit (assignable endpoint configuration hardware registers 218 can support configuration or operation of a particular assignable endpoint, of the plurality of assignable endpoints 216, by storing store information regarding the particular assignable endpoint. For some examples, the information stored by the plurality of assignable endpoint configuration hardware registers 218 facilitates dynamic assignment of a particular assignable endpoint 216 to a virtual USB device by the management controller 208; [0037]).
While Emerson teaches software running on a processor of the computing system relating to the USB operations, Emerson is silent regarding a second software stack and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose providing the second descriptor to a second software stack.
However, Moore discloses providing the descriptor to a software stack (which returns device descriptor information 420 to USB host stack, [0033]; If additional descriptors are needed by USB host stack 901 they may be obtained, [0057]).
The rationale to support a conclusion of obvious remains as indicated above with respect to claim 11.
As to claim 14, Emerson discloses the integrated circuit is further to: take an action to manage the first embedded device (An “armed” virtual USB device endpoint may be one that is marked (e.g., by the management controller) as being ready to transfer data (e.g., makes a USB data transfer request ACK [acknowledged] instead of NAK [not acknowledged]). When this occurs, the virtual USB host controller can perform a data transfer according to the transfer descriptor; [0016]) based on one or more data inputs received from one or more other embedded devices connected to the integrated circuit (the management controller can process incoming USB data requests, formulate or obtain USB data responses, and point the corresponding virtual USB device…The virtual USB host controller can execute its asynchronous and periodic transfer schedules until it finds a valid USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint; [0016]).
Claims 3-4, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerson in view of Moore, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, and 14 above, further in view of Srivastava et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0189222), hereinafter referred to as Srivastava.
As to claim 3, while Emerson discloses the first embedded device operating according to the USB protocol, Emerson does not appear to explicitly disclose operating according to a first communication protocol that is different than the USB protocol.
However, Srivastava discloses operating according to a first communication protocol that is different than the USB protocol (a second, different protocol through which to communicate with the plurality of serial bus devices, wherein the second, different protocol is a USB specification protocol, [0062]).
Emerson, Moore, and Srivastava are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, device communication management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Emerson, Moore, and Srivastava before him or her, to modify the management controller system of Emerson to include the protocol conversion as taught by Srivastava because the protocol conversion would expand device communication compatibility.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been facilitate compatibility between different communication protocols (Srivastava: [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Emerson, Moore, and Srivastava to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 4, Emerson does not appear to explicitly disclose subsequent to sending the first descriptor to the software stack, receive first data from the first embedded device; generate second data by translating the first data from a first format associated with the first communication protocol to a second format associated with the USB protocol; and send the second data to the software stack.
However, Moore discloses subsequent to sending the first descriptor to the software stack, receive first data from the first embedded device; and send data to the software stack (fig. 4A).
Furthermore, Srivastava discloses generate second data by translating the first data from a first format associated with the first communication protocol to a second format associated with the USB protocol; and send the second data (convert data transmissions from the first protocol to a second, different protocol through which to communicate with the plurality of serial bus devices, wherein the second, different protocol is a USB specification protocol, [0062]).
The suggestion/motivation to combine remains as indicated above.
As to claim 13, while Emerson discloses the first embedded device operates according to the USB protocol (USB device, [0008]), Emerson does not appear to explicitly disclose the second embedded device operates according to a non-USB protocol.
However, Srivastava discloses the second embedded device operates according to a non-USB protocol. (a second, different protocol through which to communicate with the plurality of serial bus devices, wherein the second, different protocol is a USB specification protocol, [0062]).
The suggestion/motivation to combine remains as indicated above.
As to claim 15, Emerson discloses the first embedded device is an embedded display connected to the integrated circuit (the virtual USB device coupled to the virtual USB host controller 110 is one provisioned, configured, and emulated by the management controller 106… virtual USB device can include, without limitation, a USB storage device, a USB human input device (e.g., keyboard or mouse), a USB display device, USB network controller (e.g., Ethernet controller), or the like, [0032]).
Emerson does not appear to explicitly disclose an embedded Universal Serial Bus 2 version 2 (eUSB2v2) interconnect.
However, Srivastava discloses an embedded Universal Serial Bus 2 version 2 (eUSB2v2) interconnect (serial bus port may communicate with the repeater using a first protocol, wherein the first protocol is an eUSB2 specification protocol, [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Emerson, Moore, and Srivastava before him or her, to substitute the anticipated interconnect of Emerson with the eUSB2 interconnect taught by Srivastava because the prior art of Emerson contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a USB interconnect with other components; Srivastava demonstrated that that the substituted components (i.e., an EUSB2 interconnect) and their functions were known in the art; and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known USB interconnect for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable interconnect between USB devices.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Emerson, Moore, and Srivastava to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerson in view of Moore, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, and 14 above, further in view of Bunger et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0094672), hereinafter referred to as Bunger, further in view of Turnock er al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0077842), Turnock.
As to claim 10, while the combination of Emerson in view of Moore discloses the software stack loaded for the first embedded device, the combination does not appear to explicitly disclose a USB kernel mode driver stack and a user mode device driver.
However, Bunger discloses a USB kernel mode driver stack (virtual bus driver is a kernel mode driver that simulates a USB bus and manages devices that show up on that bus, [0054]).
Furthermore, Turnock discloses a user mode device driver (operating system's USB driver stack…and user mode display driver, [0104]).
Emerson, Moore, Bunger, and Turnock are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, USB system management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Emerson, Moore, Bunger, and Turnock before him or her, to modify the management controller system of Emerson in view of Moore to include respective drivers of Bunger and Turnock because Emerson, Moore, Bunger, and Turnock demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, because the software stack and respective drivers are common software components of USB systems; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in predictable USB software system facilitating of the functionality between a host and device in a USB system.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Emerson, Moore, Bunger, and Turnock to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerson in view of Teddy et al. (US Patent No. 12,242,397), hereinafter referred to as Teddy.
As to claim 17, Emerson discloses the multi-device host controller is further to: based on detecting a second embedded device (endpoints 112, fig. 1); operating according to the second communication protocol (the management controller can cause the construction or destruction of virtual USB devices… selectively assigned and mapped to a virtual USB device for use as one its endpoints, [0018]), generate second identification information for the second embedded device based on the second communication protocol (USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint. An “armed” virtual USB device endpoint may be one that is marked (e.g., by the management controller) as being ready to transfer data…When this occurs, the virtual USB host controller can perform a data transfer according to the transfer descriptor, [0016]) and on second peripheral configuration information (information regarding the particular assignable endpoint; [0037]).
Emerson does not appear to explicitly disclose the step to provide the second identification information to a second user mode device driver for the second embedded device.
However, Teddy discloses providing the second identification information to a second user mode device driver for the second embedded device (USB hub driver 202 detects the newly inserted USB device…the PnP manager 206 sends an I/O Request Packet (IRP) to the hub filter driver 200 (user mode) to enumerate the peripheral devices within the USB hub device stack (operation 304)…returns an array of physical device objects (PDOs) that correspond to the peripheral devices plugged into the computing device to the hub filter driver 200; col. 14, lines 45-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Emerson and Teddy before him or her, to modify the management controller system of Emerson to include driver of Teddy because Emerson and Teddy demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, because the software stack and respective drivers are common software components of USB systems; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in predictable USB software system facilitating of the functionality between a host and device in a USB system.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Emerson and Teddy to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 18, Emerson discloses the multi-device host controller is further to: determine, based on at least one capability indicator (An “armed” virtual USB device endpoint may be one that is marked, [0016]), that the multi-device host controller supports autonomous device management of the first embedded device and the second embedded device (The virtual USB host controller can execute its asynchronous and periodic transfer schedules until it finds a valid USB transfer descriptor to an “armed” virtual USB device endpoint…one that is marked (e.g., by the management controller) as being ready to transfer data…When this occurs, the virtual USB host controller can perform a data transfer according to the transfer descriptor; [0016]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerson in view of Srivastava.
As to claim 20, Emerson does not appear to explicitly disclose the first communication protocol is an Inter Integrated Circuit (I2C) protocol, an Improved Inter Integrated Circuit (I3C) protocol, a serial peripheral interface (SPI) protocol, or a general purpose input/output (GPIO) protocol.
However, Srivastava discloses a serial peripheral interface (SPI) protocol (a flash device 1222 may be coupled to processor 1210, e.g., via a serial peripheral interface (SPI), [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Emerson and Srivastava before him or her, to substitute the anticipated interface of Emerson with the SPI taught by Srivastava because the prior art of Emerson contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of an interconnect with other interconnects; Srivastava demonstrated that that the substituted components (i.e., SPI) and their functions were known in the art; and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known interconnect for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable interconnect between devices.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Emerson and Srivastava to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The US Pub. No. 2019/0042521 of Chen and the US Pub. No. 2020/0057742 of Maung et al. relate to eUSB2 interconnects.
The examiner has cited particular column, line, and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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).
Applicants seeking an interview with the examiner, including WebEx Video Conferencing, are encouraged to fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html). See MPEP §502.03, §713.01(11) and Interview Practice for additional details.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-6991. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 800am-430pm (MT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on (571) 272-4176. 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 Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center 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.
/ERIC T OBERLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184