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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nowak et al (US PGPUB 2022/0385290).
Regarding claim 6, Figure 6 of Nowak discloses a system comprising: a bus repeater; a first communication unit; a second communication unit; an A-side terminal of a first repeating unit connected to a data pin of the first communication unit via a first bus line; a B-side terminal of the first repeating unit connected to a data pin of the second communication unit via a second bus line; an A-side terminal of a second repeating unit connected to a clock pin of the first communication unit via a third bus line; and a B-side terminal of the second repeating unit connected to a clock pin of the second communication unit via a fourth bus line [paragraphs 135 and 136; Figure 6].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak et al (US PGPUB 2022/0385290) in view of Travers et al (US PGPUB 2009/0031065).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 2 of Nowak discloses a repeating unit for open-drain bus communication, the repeating unit comprising:
an A-side terminal configured to be electrically connected to an A-side open-drain bus line [2a; paragraph 76]
a B-side terminal configured to be electrically connected to a B-side open-drain bus line [2b; paragraph 76]
wherein the repeating unit is operable in a first mode in which the repeating unit is configured to receive a signal at the A-side terminal and to produce a signal at the B-side terminal based on the signal received at the A-side terminal [paragraph 76; paragraph 84]
a B-side rise time accelerator element electrically connected to the B-side terminal [3b; paragraph 83]
a controller unit [11a]
wherein the controller unit is configured to, when the repeating unit is operating in the first mode, control the B-side rise time accelerator element to pull up a voltage at the B-side terminal when the voltage at the A-side terminal surpasses a first threshold voltage during a rising edge of the voltage, and to subsequently control the B-side rise time accelerator element to stop pulling up the voltage at the B-side terminal when the voltage at the B-side terminal surpasses a second threshold voltage [Figure 3]
wherein the controller unit is further configured to disable the B-side rise time accelerator element [paragraphs 99-104]
Nowak does not explicitly disclose when sending or receiving a handshake bit.
Figure 4 of Travers discloses when sending or receiving a handshake bit [paragraphs 115-117; Figure 9].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a handshake bit as taught by Travers in the repeating unit of Nowak for the purpose of determining data transfer direction, as implied by Travers [paragraphs 115-117; Figure 9].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 1, discloses an A-side rise time accelerator element [3a Figure 2 Nowak] electrically connected to the A-side terminal, wherein the repeating unit is operable in a second mode in which the repeating unit is configured to receive a signal at the B-side terminal and to produce a signal at the A-side terminal based on the signal received at the B-side terminal, wherein the controller unit is further configured to, when the repeating unit is operating in the second mode, control the A-side rise time accelerator element to pull up a voltage at the A-side terminal when the voltage at the B-side terminal surpasses a third threshold voltage during a rising edge of the voltage, and to subsequently control the A-side rise time accelerator element to stop pulling up the voltage at the A-side terminal when the voltage at the A-side terminal surpasses a fourth threshold voltage, and wherein the controller unit is further configured to disable the A-side rise time accelerator element when sending or receiving a handshake bit [Figure 2 Nowak; Figure 3 Nowak; paragraphs 115-117 Travers; Figure 9 Travers; see rejection of claim 1].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 2, discloses a direction control element, wherein the controller unit is configured to determine whether the repeating unit is operating in the first mode or the second mode, and wherein the controller unit is further configured to control the direction control element to block communication from the B-side terminal to the A-side terminal in the first mode and block communication from the A-side terminal to the B-side terminal in the second mode [paragraphs 84-88 Nowak].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 1, discloses wherein the repeating unit is an inter-integrated circuit (I2C) repeating unit [paragraph 2 Nowak].
Regarding claim 5, Figure 2 of Nowak discloses a bus repeater comprising one or more repeating units, wherein at least one of the repeating units comprises:
an A-side terminal configured to be electrically connected to an A-side open-drain bus line [2a; paragraph 76]
a B-side terminal configured to be electrically connected to a B-side open-drain bus line [2b; paragraph 76]
wherein the repeating unit is operable in a first mode in which the repeating unit is configured to receive a signal at the A-side terminal and to produce a signal at the B-side terminal based on the signal received at the A-side terminal [paragraph 76; paragraph 84]
a B-side rise time accelerator element electrically connected to the B-side terminal [3b; paragraph 83]
a controller unit [11a]
wherein the controller unit is configured to, when the repeating unit is operating in the first mode, control the B-side rise time accelerator element to pull up a voltage at the B-side terminal when the voltage at the A-side terminal surpasses a first threshold voltage during a rising edge of the voltage, and to subsequently control the B-side rise time accelerator element to stop pulling up the voltage at the B-side terminal when the voltage at the B-side terminal surpasses a second threshold voltage [Figure 3]
wherein the controller unit is further configured to disable the B-side rise time accelerator element [paragraphs 99-104]
Nowak does not explicitly disclose when sending or receiving a handshake bit.
Figure 4 of Travers discloses when sending or receiving a handshake bit [paragraphs 115-117; Figure 9].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a handshake bit as taught by Travers in the repeating unit of Nowak for the purpose of determining data transfer direction, as implied by Travers [paragraphs 115-117; Figure 9].
Regarding claim 7, Figure 2 of Nowak discloses wherein the bus repeater comprises one or more repeating units, wherein at least one of the repeating units comprises:
an A-side terminal configured to be electrically connected to an A-side open-drain bus line [2a; paragraph 76]
a B-side terminal configured to be electrically connected to a B-side open-drain bus line [2b; paragraph 76]
wherein the repeating unit is operable in a first mode in which the repeating unit is configured to receive a signal at the A-side terminal and to produce a signal at the B-side terminal based on the signal received at the A-side terminal [paragraph 76; paragraph 84]
a B-side rise time accelerator element electrically connected to the B-side terminal [3b; paragraph 83]
a controller unit [11a]
wherein the controller unit is configured to, when the repeating unit is operating in the first mode, control the B-side rise time accelerator element to pull up a voltage at the B-side terminal when the voltage at the A-side terminal surpasses a first threshold voltage during a rising edge of the voltage, and to subsequently control the B-side rise time accelerator element to stop pulling up the voltage at the B-side terminal when the voltage at the B-side terminal surpasses a second threshold voltage [Figure 3]
wherein the controller unit is further configured to disable the B-side rise time accelerator element [paragraphs 99-104]
Nowak does not explicitly disclose when sending or receiving a handshake bit.
Figure 4 of Travers discloses when sending or receiving a handshake bit [paragraphs 115-117; Figure 9].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a handshake bit as taught by Travers in the repeating unit of Nowak for the purpose of determining data transfer direction, as implied by Travers [paragraphs 115-117; Figure 9].
Regarding claim 8, Figure 2 of Nowak discloses an inter-integrated circuit, I2C, based communication in a repeating unit, the repeating unit comprising an A-side terminal acting as Master and a B-side terminal acting a Slave [Figure 2; Figure 6].
Nowak does not explicitly disclose
a method of transmitting a handshake
the method comprising: determining that a handshake is to be performed from Master to Slave, and if this has been determined: blocking communication from Master to Slave; and blocking edge acceleration of signals on the A-side terminal and the B-side terminal of the repeating unit
Figure 4 of Travers discloses
a method of transmitting a handshake [paragraphs 115-117; Figure 9]
the method comprising: determining that a handshake is to be performed from Master to Slave, and if this has been determined: blocking communication from Master to Slave; and blocking edge acceleration of signals on the A-side terminal and the B-side terminal of the repeating unit [paragraphs 115-117; Figure 9]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a handshake method as taught by Travers in the repeating unit of Nowak for the purpose of determining data transfer direction, as implied by Travers [paragraphs 115-117; Figure 9].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 8, discloses after blocking the edge acceleration, monitoring a status of the B-side terminal and enabling Slave to Master propagation; sending a high signal on the A-side terminal if the B-side terminal is not driven from Slave; and sending a low signal to the A-side terminal and determine that an acknowledgement is detected from Slave if the B-side terminal is driven from Slave [see rejection of claim 8].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 8, discloses determining that a handshake is to be performed from Slave to Master, and if this has been determined: blocking communication from Slave to Master; and blocking edge acceleration of signals on the A-side terminal and the B-side terminal of the repeating unit [see rejection of claim 8].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 9, discloses determining that a handshake is to be performed from Slave to Master, and if this has been determined: blocking communication from Slave to Master; and blocking edge acceleration of signals on the A-side terminal and the B-side terminal of the repeating unit [see rejection of claim 8].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 10, discloses after blocking the edge acceleration, monitoring a status of the A-side terminal and enable Master to Slave propagation; sending a high signal on the B-side terminal if the A-side terminal is not driven from Master; and sending a low signal to the B-side terminal if the A-side terminal is driven from Master [see rejection of claim 8].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 9, discloses after blocking the edge acceleration, expiring a delay timer before monitoring the status of the A-side terminal or the B-side terminal [see rejection of claim 8].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 10, discloses after blocking the edge acceleration, expiring a delay timer before monitoring the status of the A-side terminal or the B-side terminal [see rejection of claim 8].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 11, discloses after blocking the edge acceleration, expiring a delay timer before monitoring the status of the A-side terminal or the B-side terminal [see rejection of claim 8].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 12, does not explicitly disclose wherein the delay timer is set to 160 ns.
However, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the combination of Nowak and Travers, as applied to claim 12, by using a delay timer of 160 ns as a matter of simple design-choice, since it has been held that finding the optimum or workable ranges/values involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tomi S Skibinski whose telephone number is (571)270-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 10am - 8pm.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/TOMI SKIBINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842