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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Application filed on 11/11/2024.
Claims 1-36 are pending for this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/11/2024; 6/27/2025; and 11/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 26, line 1, “apparatus of claim 24” should be amended to read as --apparatus of claim 25--, as the “at least a portion of the first information” being discussed in claim 26 is the first instance of this limitation in this branch of the claim tree. Examiner believes that it may have been intended for claim 26 to depend on claim 25 which has the first instance of “at least a portion of the first information” under independent claim 24.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13-22, 24-27, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi et al. (US 2014/0086351), herein referred to as Nammi ‘351 in view of Pande et al. (US 2016/0323127), herein referred to as Pande ‘127.
Referring to claim 1, Nammi ‘351 teaches an apparatus (see the communication system of Figs. 1A-1B) comprising:
a node (see Fig. 2, base station node 100) comprising at least one circuit (see Fig. 2, wherein base station node 100 includes circuits such as processor 101 and transceiver 109 which are circuits) configured to:
receive, using a first channel of an on-die interface (see Fig. 6, wherein there are multiple channel decoders CDs to decode demodulated and deinterleaved data, such as CD1, i.e. a first channel of a transceiver), first information (see Paragraph 0171, where separate decoding CD1-CD4 is done for each multiple-in multiple-out (MIMO) layer received during a MIMO transmission time interval (TTI) to get sub-blocks such as transport blocks TB1-TB4, i.e. first information or TB1);
receive, using a second channel of the on-die interface (see Fig. 6, wherein there are multiple channel decoders CDs to decode demodulated and deinterleaved data, such as CD2, i.e. a second channel of a transceiver), second information (see Paragraph 0171, where separate decoding CD1-CD4 is done for each multiple-in multiple-out (MIMO) layer received during a MIMO transmission time interval (TTI) to get sub-blocks such as transport blocks TB1-TB4, i.e. second information or TB2);
generate one or more transaction units comprising the first information and the second information (see Fig. 6, transport block combiner 607; see Paragraphs 0165-0167, where transport block generator 607 may combine transport blocks B1 and B2 as a data stream, i.e. generate a transaction unit having the first and second information); and
send, using at least one circuit-to-circuit system (see Fig. 2, where the processor 101 and transceiver 109 are a part of the same base station node 100, i.e. one circuit die to another circuit die), the one or more transaction units (see Fig. 2, wherein the transceivers 109 would send the data to decoded/demodulated data to the processor 101, i.e. receiving data from wireless terminals 200 for processing).
However, Nammi ‘351 teach teaches a network base station node having circuits thereon communicating with multiple wireless terminal devices and communication between circuits of the node or between the base station node and wireless terminal devices, which is different from a die comprising at least one circuit and communication using a die-to-die system.
Pande ‘127 teaches a network-on-chip (NoC) device (see Fig. 1, NoC system 100) having multiple processing cores (see Fig. 1, cores 102, 108, 112, 116, 120; see Paragraph 0026) and multiple switches to implement wireless connections (see Fig. 1, switches 118, 104, 106, 110, and 114; see Paragraph 0026) where the processing cores are arranged in 20mm x 20mm die (see Paragraph 0027), meaning communication between processors can be die-to-die communications.
Nammi ‘351 and Pande ‘127 apply as analogous prior arts as both pertain to the same field of endeavor of wireless communication systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nammi ‘351 system as set forth above to have the network base station node be a network-on-chip comprising processing circuits arranged on dies and switches for wireless communications between each processor (processor die-to-processor die communication), as taught by Pande ‘127, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a network-on-chip having multiple dies communicating as the base station node as NoCs are known to offer superior scalability and power efficiency with simplified design in order to handle increased traffic with multiple external wireless terminals without degrading performance compared with normal packet switching network chips, i.e. scaling more processors cores in the base station node to handle increased amount of traffic and connections without significant architecture overhaul.
Note, claim 13 is an apparatus claim; and claim 24 is an apparatus claim that recites the same limitations as claim 1 above. Referring to claim 13, Nammi ‘351 teaches an apparatus (see the communication system of Figs. 1A-1B) comprising: the same limitations as claim 1 above (see above rejection of claim 1), but with the difference of: receiving, using at least one on-die interface (see Fig. 2, transceiver 109, which receives signals from wireless terminals 200, the die aspect being shown in combination with Pande ‘127 above), first information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received) for a first transaction (see Paragraph 0171, where separate decoding CD1-CD4 is done for each multiple-in multiple-out (MIMO) layer received during a MIMO transmission time interval (TTI) to get sub-blocks such as transport blocks TB1-TB4, i.e. first information or TB1) and receiving, using the at least one on-die interface (see Fig. 2, transceiver 109, which receives signals from wireless terminals 200, the die aspect being shown in combination with Pande ‘127 above), second information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received) for a second transaction (see Paragraph 0171, where separate decoding CD1-CD4 is done for each multiple-in multiple-out (MIMO) layer received during a MIMO transmission time interval (TTI) to get sub-blocks such as transport blocks TB1-TB4, i.e. second information or TB2) in place of the “receiving … first information” and “receiving … second information” respectively in independent claim 1. Referring to claim 24, Nammi ‘351 teaches an apparatus (see the communication system of Figs. 1A-1B) comprising: the same limitations as claim 1 above (see above rejection of claim 1), but with the difference of: receiving, using a first on-die interface (see Fig. 6, wherein the transceiver 109 is receiving signals from 4 separate antennas Ant1-Ant4, and sending each signal to its own set of demodulator/deinterleaver and decoder, i.e. an interface for each signal/antenna respectively; see Paragraph 0049, wherein the transceiver can support up to 4-branch MIMO allowing parallel transmission of 4 layers/streams of data) and receiving, using a second on-die interface (see Fig. 6, wherein the transceiver 109 is receiving signals from 4 separate antennas Ant1-Ant4, and sending each signal to its own set of demodulator/deinterleaver and decoder, i.e. an interface for each signal/antenna respectively; see Paragraph 0049, wherein the transceiver can support up to 4-branch MIMO allowing parallel transmission of 4 layers/streams of data) in place of the “receiving, using a first channel of an on-die interface” and “receiving, using a second channel of the on-die interface” respectively in independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 13 and 24 are rejected for the same reasoning as set forth above.
As to claims 3, 14, and 25, Nammi ‘351 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. wherein one of the one or more transaction units comprises at least a portion of the first information and at least a portion of the second information (see Fig. 6, transport block combiner 607; see Paragraphs 0165-0167, where transport block generator 607 may combine transport blocks B1 and B2 as a data stream, i.e. generate a transaction unit having the first and second information; Examiner points out that the output data stream would have a portion of the first and second information).
As to claims 6, 17, and 31, Nammi ‘351 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one die-to-die system comprises a path; and the at least one circuit is configured to: send, using the path, at least a portion of the first information; and send, using the path, at least a portion of the second information (see Fig. 2, wherein there is a bidirectional “path” for communication between processor 101 and transceiver 109, hence the first information and second information to the processor through the path for receiving and sending of data).
As to claims 7 and 18, Nammi ‘351 teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein: the at least a portion of the first information comprises control information; and the least a portion of the second information comprises control information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
As to claims 8 and 19, Nammi ‘351 teaches the apparatus of claim 6. wherein: the at least a portion of the first information comprises data information; and the least a portion of the second information comprises data information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
As to claims 9, 20, and 33, Nammi ‘351 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the at least one die-to-die system comprises a first path; and the at least one circuit is configured to: send, using the first path, at least a portion of the first information; and send, using the first path, at least a portion of the second information (see Fig. 2, wherein there is a bidirectional “path” for communication between processor 101 and transceiver 109, hence the first information and second information to the processor through the path for receiving and sending of data).
However, Nammi ‘351 does not specifically teach the die-to-die system comprising a second path.
Pande ‘127 teaches a network-on-chip (NoC) device (see Fig. 1, NoC system 100) having multiple processing cores (see Fig. 1, cores 102, 108, 112, 116, 120; see Paragraph 0026) and multiple switches to implement wireless connections (see Fig. 1, switches 118, 104, 106, 110, and 114; see Paragraph 0026) where the processing cores are arranged in 20mm x 20mm die (see Paragraph 0027), meaning communication between processors can be die-to-die communications.
Nammi ‘351 and Pande ‘127 apply as analogous prior arts as both pertain to the same field of endeavor of wireless communication systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nammi ‘351 system as set forth above to have the network base station node be a network-on-chip comprising processing circuits arranged on dies and switches for wireless communications between each processor (processor die-to-processor die communication) where there are multiple processing units and switches, hence multiple pathing can be done to any desired processor, as taught by Pande ‘127, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a network-on-chip having multiple dies communicating as the base station node as NoCs are known to offer superior scalability and power efficiency with simplified design in order to handle increased traffic with multiple external wireless terminals without degrading performance compared with normal packet switching network chips, i.e. scaling more processors cores in the base station node to handle increased amount of traffic and connections without significant architecture overhaul.
As to claims 10, 21, and 34, Nammi ‘351 teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein: the at least a portion of the first information comprises control information; and the least a portion of the second information comprises control information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
As to claims 11, 22, and 35, Nammi ‘351 teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein: the at least a portion of the first information comprises data information; and the least a portion of the second information comprises data information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
As to claim 15, Nammi ‘351 teaches apparatus of claim 14, wherein: the at least a portion of the first information comprises control information for the first transaction; and the least a portion of the second information comprises control information for the second transaction (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
As to claim 16, Nammi ‘351 teaches apparatus of claim 14, wherein: the at least a portion of the first information comprises data information for the first transaction; and the least a portion of the second information comprises data information for the second transaction (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
As to claim 26, Nammi ‘351 teaches apparatus of claim 24, wherein the at least a portion of the first information comprises control information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
As to claim 27, Nammi ‘351 teaches apparatus of claim 24, wherein the at least a portion of the first information comprises data information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
As to claim 32, Nammi ‘351 teaches apparatus of claim 31, wherein: the at least a portion of first information comprises control information and data information; and the at least a portion of second information comprises control information and data information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
Claims 2 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi ‘351 in view of Pande ‘127, and further in view of Rankin et al. (US 7,486,685), herein referred to as Rankin ‘685.
As to claim 2, Nammi ‘351 and Pande ‘127 do not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: a first one of the one or more transaction units comprises at least a portion of the first information; and a second one of the one or more transaction units comprises at least a portion of the second information.
Rankin ‘685 teaches a system taking two channels of data and interleaving the data into a single physical connection, i.e. alternating units of data such as packets or flits from the two channels (see Abstract; see Col. 4, lines 3-19).
Nammi ‘351, Pande ‘127, and Rankin ‘685 apply as analogous prior arts as all of these arts pertain to the same field of endeavor of wireless communication systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination Nammi ‘351 and Pande ‘127 system as set forth above to have the combination done in an interleaving manner, i.e. alternating units of data between two channels, such that a first one of the transaction units can be from a first channel and a second one of the transaction units can be from a second channel, as taught by Rankin ‘685, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use interleaving for combining data from multiple channels as interleaving of data increases reliability by allowing for scheduling of transmission from each channel allows for the arrangement of the order of data so that adjacent bits are not transmitted together thereby protecting against fading or noise that can cause errors in continuous streams of data.
As to claim 28, Nammi ‘351 and Pande ‘127 do not teach apparatus of claim 24, wherein: a first one of the one or more transaction units comprises at least a portion of the first information; and a second one of the one or more transaction units comprises at least a portion of the second information.
Rankin ‘685 teaches a system taking two channels of data and interleaving the data into a single physical connection, i.e. alternating units of data such as packets or flits from the two channels (see Abstract; see Col. 4, lines 3-19).
Nammi ‘351, Pande ‘127, and Rankin ‘685 apply as analogous prior arts as all of these arts pertain to the same field of endeavor of wireless communication systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination Nammi ‘351 and Pande ‘127 system as set forth above to have the combination done in an interleaving manner, i.e. alternating units of data between two channels, such that a first one of the transaction units can be from a first channel and a second one of the transaction units can be from a second channel, as taught by Rankin ‘685, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use interleaving for combining data from multiple channels as interleaving of data increases reliability by allowing for scheduling of transmission from each channel allows for the arrangement of the order of data so that adjacent bits are not transmitted together thereby protecting against fading or noise that can cause errors in continuous streams of data.
As to claim 29, Nammi ‘351 teaches apparatus of claim 28, wherein: the at least a portion of the first information comprises control information; and the at least a portion of the second information comprises control information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
As to claim 30, Nammi ‘351 teaches apparatus of claim 28, wherein: the at least a portion of the first information comprises data information; and the at least a portion of the second information comprises data information (see Paragraph 0169 wherein up to 4 data blocks (transport blocks) and associated control signaling are transmitted for the 4-branch MIMO, i.e. information would include a transport block and associated control signals for each of the MIMO signals sent / received).
Claims 12, 23 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi ‘351 in view of Pande ‘127, and further in view of Sampath et al. (US 2006/0034352), herein referred to as Sampath ‘352.
As to claims 12, 23, and 36, Nammi ‘351 and Pande ‘127 do not specifically teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein one of the one or more transaction units comprises error correction information for at least one of the one or more transaction units.
Sampath ‘352 teaches wireless communication system (see Abstract) where cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code is generated are part of encoding data for transmission (see Paragraph 0014) and likewise CRC checking is done during decoding, de-interleaving, etc. (see Paragraph 0018).
Nammi ‘351, Pande ‘127, and Sampath ‘352 apply as analogous prior arts as all of these arts pertain to the same field of endeavor of wireless communication systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination Nammi ‘351 and Pande ‘127 system as set forth above to error correcting coding, i.e. CRC, included in encoding and decoding of data for communication which would include including and checking CRC codes for generated combined output data, as taught by Sampath ‘352, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include error correction code to ensure data integrity by allowing the receivers of data to detect and fix errors caused by noise, interference, or signal degradation without requiring retransmission of data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 4, Examiner finds that prior art does not specifically teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first information comprises information for a first transaction of the on-die interface and information for a second transaction of the on-die interface. More specifically Examiner finds that prior art does not teach the first information received from a first channel comprising information for a generated first transaction unit and information for a generated second transaction unit where the generated transaction units comprise first information and second information as claimed through the combination of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm EST.
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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on 571-270-3995. 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.
/MICHAEL SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183