DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/086,880 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
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 .
INFORMATION CONCERNING DRAWINGS
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SPECIFICATION
Specification
The applicant’s specification submitted is acceptable for examination purposes.
REJECTIONS NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “computer-readable storage medium” encompasses signals per se. The specification discloses that “the term "machine-readable storage medium" should be taken to include a single medium or multiple media that store the one or more sets of instructions. The term "machine- readable storage medium" shall also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing or encoding a set of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present disclosure” (see [Paragraph 0077]). A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(II). It is suggested that claims 19-20 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” computer readable medium to overcome this rejection.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Srivastava et al. (Publication Number US 2024/0111700 A1) in view of Yamagishi (Patent Number US 6,731,650 B1).
As per claim 1, Srivastava et al. discloses “A computing sub-system comprising: a physical link comprising a set of lanes configured according to a first lane configuration (multiple lane data link 746 that has a first set of lanes 716 and a second set of lanes 718; Paragraph 0085; FIG. 7A-7D), the first lane configuration including a first portion of the set of lanes being disabled and a second portion of the set of lanes serving traffic at a first link speed (where the second set of lanes 718 is in an idle state while the first set of lanes 716 is transferring data traffic at a particular data rate [Paragraph 0085]. Note GEN2 and GEN3; FIG. 7A-7D; Paragraphs 0069 and 0075).”
Srivastava et al. discloses “configuring the set of lanes according to a second lane configuration, the configuring of the set of lanes according to the second lane configuration comprising: configuring the first portion of the set of lanes to serve traffic at a second link speed (steps 904 to 906 where a set of lanes is changed to active state and trained to a requested data rate; FIG. 9).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and disabling the second portion of the set of lanes (where a set of lanes is made idle (see contrast between FIG. 7A with a second set of lanes being active and FIG. 7D where the second set of lanes are now idle); Paragraphs 0082 and 0085).”
However, Srivastava et al. does not disclose the change in response to bandwidth utilization change as disclosed in the limitations “and a processing device, operatively coupled to the physical link to perform operations comprising: detecting a change to bandwidth utilization of the physical link” and “and in response to detecting the change to bandwidth utilization of the physical link.”
Yamagishi discloses the change in response to bandwidth utilization change as disclosed in the limitations “and a processing device, operatively coupled to the physical link to perform operations comprising: detecting a change to bandwidth utilization of the physical link (the required bandwidth of which changes depending on the operation mode lends a channel to another device as needed; Column 18, lines 47-49).”
Yamagishi discloses “and in response to detecting the change to bandwidth utilization of the physical link (Column 18, lines 47-49).”
Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi are analogous art in that they in the field of lane configurations within communication links.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi in order to assure a required number of channels as opposed to limitations within prior art systems [Column 1, lines 26-32].
As per claims 2 and 11, Yamagishi discloses “The computing sub-system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), wherein: detecting the change to the bandwidth utilization of the physical link comprising detecting an increase to the bandwidth utilization of the physical link (Column 18, lines 47-49).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and the second link speed is higher than the first link speed (Paragraphs 0038, 0063, and 0101).”
As per claims 3 and 12, Yamagishi discloses “The computing sub-system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), wherein: detecting the change to the bandwidth utilization of the physical link comprising detecting a decrease to the bandwidth utilization of the physical link (lending a channel as needed (emphasis) [Column 18, lines 47-49] which is interpreted as channels being used or unused depending on the situation).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and the second link speed is lower than the first link speed (Paragraphs 0038, 0063, and 0101).”
As per claims 4 and 13, Srivastava et al. discloses “The computing sub-system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), wherein the operations comprise: prior to detecting the change to the bandwidth utilization of the physical link, determining whether a power limit for the physical link has been set by a host system (see power management and bandwidth negotiation; Paragraph 0038).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and based on determining no power limit has been set for the physical link, configuring the set of lanes according to a third lane configuration, the configuring of the set of lanes according to the third lane configuration comprising configuring each lane in the set of lanes to serve traffic at third link speed, the third link speed being a fastest link speed for the set of lanes in the physical link (steps 904 to 906 where a set of lanes is changed to active state and trained to a requested data rate; FIG. 9).”
As per claims 5 and 14, Yamagishi discloses “The computing sub-system of claim 4 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), wherein: the change to the bandwidth utilization of the physical link is a first change (Column 18, lines 47-49).” Srivastava et al. discloses “the operations comprise: prior to detecting the first change to the bandwidth utilization, detecting a second change to the bandwidth utilization of the physical link, the second change comprising a decrease to the bandwidth utilization (steps 904 to 906 where a set of lanes is changed to active state and trained to a requested data rate; FIG. 9).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and based on detecting the second change to the bandwidth utilization, configuring the set of lanes according to the first lane configuration (steps 904 to 906 where a set of lanes is changed to active state and trained to a requested data rate; FIG. 9).”
As per claims 6 and 15, Srivastava et al. discloses “The computing sub-system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), wherein the operations comprise: prior to detecting the change to the bandwidth utilization of the physical link, determining a power limit for the physical link has been set by a host system (see power management and bandwidth negotiation; Paragraph 0038).” Srivastava et al. discloses “determining a workload communicated over the physical link is dynamic (step 402-404 with detection and polling [FIG. 4]. See also step 902 in [FIG. 9]).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and based on determining the power limit for the physical link has been set by the host system and determining that the workload communicated over the physical link is dynamic (Paragraphs 0038, 0063, and 0101), configuring the set of lanes according to the first lane configuration (steps 904 to 906 where a set of lanes is changed to active state and trained to a requested data rate; FIG. 9).”
As per claims 7 and 16, Srivastava et al. discloses “The computing sub-system of claim 6 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), wherein configuring the set of lanes according to the first lane configuration comprises: determining the first link speed based on a power and performance ratio at the power limit set by the host (see power management and bandwidth negotiation; Paragraph 0038), the determining the first link speed comprising identifying a link speed that provides a highest power and performance ratio (Paragraphs 0038, 0063, and 0101).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and configuring the second portion of the set of lanes to serve traffic at the first link speed (steps 904 to 906 where a set of lanes is changed to active state and trained to a requested data rate; FIG. 9).”
As per claim 8, Srivastava et al. discloses “The computing sub-system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), comprising a memory device, wherein the physical link couples the computing sub-system to a host system, the traffic served by the second portion of the set of lanes including data read from the memory device based on a command received from the host system (memory subsystem 109 connected to the root complex through PCIe link; FIG. 1; Paragraphs 0039-0040).”
As per claims 9 and 18, Srivastava et al. discloses “The computing sub-system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), wherein the physical link comprises a peripheral component interconnect (PCI) express (PCIe) interface (Paragraph 0082).”
As per claim 10, Srivastava et al. discloses “A method comprising: detecting, by a processing device, a change to bandwidth utilization of a physical link, the physical link including a set of lanes configured according to a first lane configuration (multiple lane data link 746 that has a first set of lanes 716 and a second set of lanes 718; Paragraph 0085; FIG. 7A-7D), the first lane configuration including a first portion of the set of lanes being disabled and a second portion of the set of lanes serving traffic at a first link speed (where the second set of lanes 718 is in an idle state while the first set of lanes 716 is transferring data traffic at a particular data rate [Paragraph 0085]. Note GEN2 and GEN3; FIG. 7A-7D; Paragraphs 0069 and 0075).”
Srivastava et al. discloses “configuring, by the processing device, the set of lanes according to a second lane configuration, the configuring of the set of lanes according to the second lane configuration comprising: configuring the first portion of the set of lanes to serve traffic at a second link speed (steps 904 to 906 where a set of lanes is changed to active state and trained to a requested data rate; FIG. 9).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and disabling the second portion of the set of lanes (where a set of lanes is made idle (see contrast between FIG. 7A with a second set of lanes being active and FIG. 7D where the second set of lanes are now idle); Paragraphs 0082 and 0085).”
However, Srivastava et al. does not disclose the change in response to bandwidth utilization change as disclosed in the limitations “discloses “in response to detecting the change to bandwidth utilization of the physical link.”
Yamagishi discloses the change in response to bandwidth utilization change as disclosed in the limitations “in response to detecting the change to bandwidth utilization of the physical link (the required bandwidth of which changes depending on the operation mode lends a channel to another device as needed; Column 18, lines 47-49).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi in order to assure a required number of channels as opposed to limitations within prior art systems [Column 1, lines 26-32].
As per claim 17, Srivastava et al. discloses “The method of claim 10 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), wherein the physical link couples a computing sub- system to a host system, wherein the traffic served by the second portion of the set of lanes includes data read from a memory device based on a command received from the host system (memory subsystem 109 connected to the root complex through PCIe link; FIG. 1; Paragraphs 0039-0040).”
As per claim 19, Srivastava et al. discloses “A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, configure the processing device to perform operations comprising: detecting a change to bandwidth utilization of a physical host interface that communicatively couples a host system to a computing sub-system, the physical host interface including a set of lanes configured according to a first lane configuration (multiple lane data link 746 that has a first set of lanes 716 and a second set of lanes 718; Paragraph 0085; FIG. 7A-7D), the first lane configuration including a first portion of the set of lanes being disabled and a second portion of the set of lanes serving traffic at a first link speed (where the second set of lanes 718 is in an idle state while the first set of lanes 716 is transferring data traffic at a particular data rate [Paragraph 0085]. Note GEN2 and GEN3; FIG. 7A-7D; Paragraphs 0069 and 0075).” Srivastava et al. discloses “configuring the set of lanes according to a second lane configuration, the configuring of the set of lanes according to the second lane configuration comprising: configuring the first portion of the set of lanes to serve traffic at a second link speed (steps 904 to 906 where a set of lanes is changed to active state and trained to a requested data rate; FIG. 9).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and disabling the second portion of the set of lanes (where a set of lanes is made idle (see contrast between FIG. 7A with a second set of lanes being active and FIG. 7D where the second set of lanes are now idle); Paragraphs 0082 and 0085).”
However, Srivastava et al. does not disclose the change in response to bandwidth utilization change as disclosed in the limitations “and in response to detecting the change to bandwidth utilization of the physical host interface.”
Yamagishi discloses the change in response to bandwidth utilization change as disclosed in the limitations “and in response to detecting the change to bandwidth utilization of the physical host interface (Column 18, lines 47-49).”
Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi are analogous art in that they in the field of lane configurations within communication links.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi in order to assure a required number of channels as opposed to limitations within prior art systems [Column 1, lines 26-32].
As per claim 20, Srivastava et al. discloses “The computer-readable storage medium of claim 19 (as disclosed by Srivastava et al. and Yamagishi above), wherein the operations further comprise: prior to detecting the change to the bandwidth utilization of the physical host interface, determining whether a power limit for the physical host interface has been set by a host system (see power management and bandwidth negotiation; Paragraph 0038).” Srivastava et al. discloses “based on determining no power limit has been set for the physical host interface, configuring the set of lanes according to a third lane configuration, the configuring of the set of lanes according to the third lane configuration comprising configuring each lane in the set of lanes to serve traffic at third link speed, the third link speed being a fastest link speed for the set of lanes in the physical link (steps 904 to 906 where a set of lanes is changed to active state and trained to a requested data rate; FIG. 9).” Yamagishi discloses “detecting a decrease to the bandwidth utilization of the physical host interface (lending a channel as needed (emphasis) [Column 18, lines 47-49] which is interpreted as channels being used or unused depending on the situation).” Srivastava et al. discloses “and based on detecting the decrease to the bandwidth utilization, configuring the set of lanes according to the first lane configuration (Paragraphs 0038, 0063, and 0101).”
RELEVENT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and relied upon is citied to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The following references teach lane/path configuration in a connection.
U.S. PATENT NUMBERS:2007/0233930 A1 – [Paragraph 0032]
5,134,612 – [Abstract]
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
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 no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Henry Yu whose telephone number is (571)272-9779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, IDRISS ALROBAYE can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/H.W.Y/Examiner, Art Unit 2181 July 23, 2026
/IDRISS N ALROBAYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights