There are a few misconceptions that need to be corrected.

You appear to be agreeing with the examiner that the data processing circuitry runs at the same fequency as the IO circuitry. As I have stated before this is incorrect. There is proof throughout the Kato patent indicating that the "2nd clock" is the clock provided to the data processing circuitry. Col 2 line 66 through col3 1 and col 4 lines 56-62 are examples. In the Kato patent only the voltage detection circuitry uses the so called "clock 1". The 2nd clock is also provided to the IO circuitry which is a part of the data processing circuitry (Col 4 lines 30 -36). Therefore the same clock is provided to the data processing circuitry and the IO circuitry.

The examiner does not "throw out" the handshaking aspect of the design. He is stating that "claim 13 makes no reference to the signaling necessary to control coupling or decoupling of the CPU and I/O interface" and goes onto indicate that the issue is not that the handshaking protocol has not been explained but that not enough detail of the protocol has been specified in the claim to warrant inclusion of the protocol. The fact is that column 17 lines 25-32 of the 336 patent covers the transfer protocol. Also Fig 17 of the 336 provides an illustration of the interface.

There are other fallacies in the rejection letter. The examiner indicates on page 6 in his argument against claim 2, that since the 2nd clock is 1/8 f0 when f0 is constant the 2nd clock is fixed. However he conveniently forgets that the source of the 2nd clock is the ring oscillator and therefore f0 can never be constant since the main property of the ring oscillator is that it varies with the environment. Therefore either the 2nd clock is not fixed or if it is fixed then its source is not the ring oscillator and either way the examiner loses the argument.