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 .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Group and/or Art Unit location of your application in the PTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Group Art Unit 2175.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “determining a first drive strength of a driver for a driver that communicates via a data channel.” The doubled recitation “a driver for a driver” renders the claim indefinite: it is unclear whether one driver or two distinct drivers are recited, and, if two, what the antecedent relationship is between the “driver” whose first drive strength is determined and the “driver that communicates via a data channel.” The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. The Examiner notes this appears to be a scrivener’s error and suggests amending to recite, e.g., “determining a first drive strength of a driver that communicates via a data channel,” which would overcome the rejection. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for depending from claim 18 and incorporating the same indefiniteness.
For purposes of applying prior art below (compact prosecution), claim 18 is examined as if reciting a single driver that communicates via the data channel.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Navid et al. (“Navid”) (US 11,323,297).
In regard to claim 1, Navid teaches a method, comprising: driving, using a first drive strength, a voltage of a channel toward a first voltage level of a modulation scheme, the modulation scheme comprising three or more voltage levels including the first voltage level (as shown in Fig. 1 and 4, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Navid discloses a method of co-calibrating the voltage levels of a PAM-N link between a transmitting device (104) and a receiving device (154) (FIG. 1; FIG. 8; claim 14). Navid further teaches the driver circuit (128) drives PAM-N signal (132) onto communication channel (140) toward the signal levels of the scheme (N greater than 2; PAM-4 has four levels), using a drive strength set by drive-strength control signals (120), i.e., a first (initial) drive strength. For a voltage-mode driver, “the number of active drive segments that are turned on determines the drive strength of the driver” (FIG. 4));
PNG
media_image1.png
1158
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
677
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receiving a feedback signal indicating the voltage of the channel relative to a reference voltage (in Navid, teaches the transmitting device (104) receives distortion information (162) via receiver interface circuit (108). The feedback indicates the channel voltage relative to a reference voltage: the eye-scanning comparator compares signal (176) to a reference voltage (FIG. 5), and error comparator (708) compares the level to error reference (710) and outputs error signal (750), a binary value indicating whether the level is greater or less than the reference (FIG. 7); and
adjusting the first drive strength to a second drive strength for driving the channel based at least in part on the feedback signal (in Navid, teaches driver control circuit (116) adjusts one or more drive-strength parameters of driver (128) based on the distortion information (162), applying a fixed small correction each step (“bang-bang”), i.e., adjusting from the first (initial) drive strength to a second (adjusted) drive strength (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, step 816; claim 8).
In regard to claims 2-3, 12-13, Navid teaches wherein adjusting the first drive strength comprises: adjusting the first drive strength based at least in part on the feedback signal indicating that the voltage of the channel is less than the reference voltage, wherein the first drive strength is adjusted by configuring an impedance of a driver associated with the channel (in Navid, teaches adjusting the first drive strength based on a feedback signal indicating that the channel voltage is less than (claims 2, 12) or greater than (claims 3, 13) the reference voltage, wherein the drive strength is adjusted by configuring an impedance of a driver associated with the channel and error signal (750) indicates whether the level is below or above error reference (710), directing the correction (FIG. 7); Navid’s voltage-mode driver drive strength is set by the number of active drive segments, i.e., the driver’s output impedance is configured (FIG. 4)).
In regard to claims 4 and 14, Navid teaches further: driving, using the second drive strength, the channel based at least in part on adjusting the first drive strength to the second drive strength (in Navid, teaches driving, using the second drive strength, the channel based on the adjustment, after adjustment, driver (128) continues to transmit the PAM-N signal using the adjusted drive-strength parameters (FIG. 8; the parameters are “adjusted until the inequalities … are minimized or eliminated”)).
In regard to claims 5 and 15, Navid teaches further:: receiving, based at least in part on driving the channel using the second drive strength, an additional feedback signal indicating the voltage of the channel relative to the reference voltage; and adjusting the second drive strength to a third drive strength for driving the channel based at least in part on the additional feedback signal (in Navid, teaches receiving, based on driving with the second drive strength, an additional feedback signal, and adjusting the second drive strength to a third drive strength based thereon, the correction loop is iterative (“bang-bang … a fixed small correction … applied in each step”), so a subsequent feedback signal drives a further adjustment (FIG. 4; FIG. 8)).
In regard to claims 6 and 16, Navid teaches further:: receiving, based at least in part on driving the channel using the second drive strength, an additional feedback signal indicating the voltage of the channel satisfies the reference voltage; and configuring a driver associated with the channel to use the second drive strength when driving the channel based at least in part on the additional feedback signal (in Navid, teaches receiving an additional feedback signal indicating the voltage satisfies the reference voltage, and configuring the driver to use the second drive strength based thereon and Navid adjusts until the distortion information indicates the level differences are minimized/eliminated (the level satisfies the target), whereupon the driver continues to use the resulting drive-strength parameters (FIG. 8)).
In regard to claims 7 and 17, Navid teaches wherein the feedback signal indicates a difference between the voltage and the reference voltage, and wherein adjusting the first drive strength comprises: adjusting the first drive strength to the second drive strength based at least in part on the difference between the voltage and the reference voltage (in Navid, teaches the feedback signal indicates a difference between the voltage and the reference voltage, and the adjustment is based on that difference and the distortion information (162) indicates the level/magnitude of distortion (e.g., the deviation of the measured eye-opening/ISI ratio from the ideal), i.e., a difference relative to the target reference (FIGS. 3, 5, 6)).
In regard to claim 8, Navid teaches wherein adjusting the first drive strength comprises: adjusting the first drive strength in accordance with one or more discrete increments that modify the first drive strength (in Navid, teaches adjusting the first drive strength in accordance with one or more discrete increments and the correction loop applies “a fixed small correction … in each step” (FIG. 4)).
In regard to claim 10, Navid teaches wherein the modulation scheme comprises a pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) 4 scheme comprising four voltage levels that each correspond to a symbol representative of more than one bit (in Navid, teaches the modulation scheme is a PAM-4 scheme comprising four voltage levels each corresponding to a symbol representing more than one bit, “the PAM-N signal 132 is a PAM-4 signal” with four levels, each symbol encoding two bits (FIGS. 1, 3, 6)).
Claim 11 (apparatus) recites “processing circuitry operable to cause the apparatus to” drive, receive, and adjust in the same manner as claim 1. Navid’s transmitting device (104) includes a driver control circuit (116), processing circuitry that causes the driver (128) to drive the channel (140), receives the distortion-information feedback (162) via interface (108), and adjusts the drive-strength parameters accordingly (FIGS. 1, 4, 8). The change in claim format from method to apparatus does not confer patentability where the underlying operations are identical to those taught by the applied references. See MPEP § 2114; In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969). The element-by-element mapping set forth for claim 1 applies with equal force to claim 11.
In regard to claim 18, Navid teaches method, comprising: determining a first drive strength of a driver for a driver that communicates via a data channel using a modulation scheme comprising three or more voltage levels (as shown in Fig. 1 and 4, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Navid discloses the initial drive-strength parameters of driver (128) that transmits PAM-N (N greater than 2) over channel (140) are set/determined (FIG. 1; FIG. 4; drive-strength control signals 120));
PNG
media_image3.png
301
429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
435
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and modifying the first drive strength of the driver to obtain a second drive strength that is different from the first drive strength (in Navid, teaches driver control circuit (116) modifies the drive-strength parameters from an initial value to an adjusted value (FIG. 4; FIG. 8, step 816)),
wherein the first drive strength is modified in accordance with a feedback message from a host device (in Navid, teaches the modification is made in accordance with distortion information (162) transmitted from the receiving device (154, via driver 166) to the transmitting device; the receiving device is the counterpart (host) device that supplies the feedback message (FIG. 1; FIG. 8, step 812)),
wherein the feedback message indicates a difference between a first voltage level of the data channel and a reference voltage level that corresponds to one voltage level of the modulation scheme (in Navid, teaches error comparator (708) compares the level of the channel signal to error reference (710), which is set to an ideal symbol level (e.g., 3 V for “11,” 1 V for “10,” −1 V for “01,” −3 V for “00”), i.e., a reference level corresponding to one voltage level of the scheme and the resulting error signal (750)/distortion information (162) indicates that difference (FIG. 7)).
In regard to claim 19, Navid further teaches receiving the feedback message from the host device, the feedback message comprising a first logic value that indicates whether to modify the first drive strength, wherein a change in the first logic value relative to a second logic value of a second feedback message received before the feedback message comprises an indication to modify the first drive strength, and wherein modifying the first drive strength is based at least in part on the change in the first logic value (in Navid, teaches the feedback message comprises a first logic value indicating whether to modify the drive strength, and a change in that logic value relative to a prior feedback message is the indication to modify error signal (750) is a binary logic value (1/0) indicating whether the level is above/below the reference; the adaptation loop uses the change of that value across successive iterations to direct the modification (FIG. 7)).
In regard to claim 20, Navid teaches wherein the first drive strength is associated with a first impedance that is different from a second impedance associated with the second drive strength (in Navid, teaches the first drive strength is associated with a first impedance different from a second impedance associated with the second drive strength, for the voltage-mode driver, drive strength is set by the number of active drive segments, so different drive strengths correspond to different driver output impedances (FIG. 4)).
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, 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 t which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Navid.
In order to expedite and avoid piecemeal prosecution, the following rejection is made to the extent that the claims are understood, by considering those elements which are understood and interpreting their function in a manner which is consistent with the recited goals of the claims, and then applying the best available art.
The examiner relies on the entire teaching of Navid reference; the applicant should carefully consider the entire teachings of the above-mentioned references to better understand the examiner’s position.
In regard to claim 9, Navid further determining a lowest voltage of the modulation scheme, wherein the reference voltage is based at least in part on the lowest voltage of the modulation scheme (in Navid discloses claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses that the ideal target levels are uniformly spaced (e.g., −3, −1, +1, +3 V) and that the error/reference levels (710) are set at those ideal level values (FIGS. 3, 6, 7)). Navid does not expressly recite determining a lowest voltage of the modulation scheme and basing the reference voltage on that lowest voltage. However, in Navid’s uniformly-spaced PAM-N scheme, the ideal level values and hence the reference/error levels derived from them that are defined by the endpoints (the lowest and highest levels) and the number of levels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the reference voltage for a given level based at least in part on the lowest voltage of the scheme, because doing so is the ordinary and predictable way to establish the uniformly-spaced ideal targets that Navid expressly seeks to achieve, yielding evenly-spaced levels and maximized eye margins (KSR; MPEP 2143(A) thus combination of prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results). A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Navid already defines its calibration targets by uniform spacing across the level range.
Examiner's note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references 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 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 entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al., US 6,549,036, teach output-buffer drive-strength calibration using comparator/receiver feedback (closed-loop drive-strength calibration).
Nguyen et al., US 7,808,278, teach driver calibration methods and circuits.
Nguyen et al., US 7,151,390, teach on-die termination / output-impedance calibration.
Horowitz et al., US 7,051,129, teach programmable/topography-dependent driver drive strength.
Zerbe et al., US 2013/0241622, teach n-PAM receiver with adjustable (time-varying) decision thresholds.
Dickson et al., US 2017/0359211, teach four-level (PAM-4) transmitter.
Yang et al., US 7,099,400, teach multi-level (PAM) receiver with calibration/training sequence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Raymond Phan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3630. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 6:30AM- 3:00PM. The Group Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [raymond.phan@uspto.gov].
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
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 hop://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).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 central telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
/RAYMOND N PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights