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 § 112 2nd
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 1, 11, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the CXL.io UIOMRd" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the CXL.io UIOMRd" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the CXL.io UIOMRd" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the CXL.io UIOMRd" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Applicant is required to review the claim and correct all language which does not comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
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 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 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, 11, 18, 23, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das Sharma (U.S. Publication 2021/0240655), hereinafter Das in view of Paliwal et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0112132), hereinafter Paliwal.
Referring to claim 1, Das teaches, as claimed, a method for translating between Compute Express Link (CXL) Transaction Layer Packets (TLPs) and Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) TLPs, comprising:
receiving, from a first entity (see Fig. 10, PCIe Device 1004), a CXL.io (see Fig. 10, CXL.io) Unordered (Relaxed Ordering, see Paragraph 68) Input/Output (UIO) Memory Read (UIOMRd) request (Split Read request, see Paragraph 67) comprising a first address (address field, see Paragraph 40) and a first Tag (tag field, see Paragraph 40);
translating, by a computer (see Fig. 10, CPU 1002a), the CXL.io UIOMRd
sending, to a second entity (see Fig. 10. CPU 1002b), the PCIe memory (see Fig. 10, Memory 1008b) request;
receiving, from the second entity, a PCIe Completion (completion, see Paragraph 34) corresponding to the PCIe memory request;
translating, by the computer, the PCIe Completion
sending, to the first entity, the CXL.io UIORdCplD (Relaxed Ordering, see Paragraph 68).
Das does not disclose expressly communicating/translating the CXL to/from PCIe.
Paliwal does disclose communicating/translating the CXL to/from PCIe (see Fig. 6).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate multi-protocol link of Paliwal into flexible device interconnects of Das.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide alternative ways to conserve energy and efficiency (see Paliwal, Paragraphs 3 and 19).
As to claims 11, 18, and 23, they are directed to a device/method/system to implement the method as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
As to claim 28, the modification teaches the method of claim 23, wherein the one or more integrated circuits comprise at least one of: (i) a general-purpose processing unit (computing platform, see Paragraph 19), comprising or connected to communication interfaces (network, see Paragraph 19), configured to perform the method via software (software, see Paragraph 19) and/or firmware execution
As to claim 30, the modification teaches the apparatus configured to operate as a switch (switch, see Paragraph 19), wherein the apparatus comprises switching circuitry and is configured to perform the method of claim 23.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Paliwal further in view of Jason, "Exploring the History of Active Optical Cables" hereinafter Jason.
As to claim 29, the modification teaches method of claim 1.
The Das/Paliwal modification does not expressly disclose the active cable comprising hardware circuitry, integrated into the active cable.
Jason does disclose the active cable (Fiber Optic cable, see Figure in Page 1) comprising hardware circuitry (Electronic connectors, see Figure in Page 1), integrated into the active cable.
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Jason's Active Optical Cable in Das/Paliwal modification.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide better support higher bandwidth communication (see Jason, 1st Paragraph in Page 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12-17, 19-22, and 24-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Compute Express Link (CXL) Specification discloses CXL protocol.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hyun Nam whose telephone number is (571) 270-1725 and fax number is (571) 270-2725. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST. 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 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 http://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). 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.
/HYUN NAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights