DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Pre-Brief Appeal Conference Decision
On 05 February 2026, a conference was held and the prior rejection is withdrawn. A new subsequent non-final Office Action is issued herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 11, and Claim 16, said claims recites “a clock” and further recite “a local clock”. Here, the recitation, “a clock”, could potentially refer to “a local clock” or another clock different than the “local clock”. Examiner respectfully suggests amending “a clock” such that the term cannot generically refer to other terms including “clock”.
Regarding Claims 2-10, Claims 12-15, and Claims 17-20, Claims 2-10, Claims 12-15, and Claims 17-20 are likewise rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 1, rejected Claim 11, and rejected Claim 16.
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 pre-AIA 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stokking et al. (US 20120144056 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Stokking”) in view of Xie et al. (US 20130109422 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Xie”) in further view of Huang et al. (US 20080049635 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Huang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Stokking discloses a wireless station comprising:
a time stamp generation module (¶103, Stokking discloses a user equipment (UE) where the UE is implemented via a computer. ¶30 & ¶103, Stokking further discloses a computer comprising a media storing a program product for execution by the computer) arranged to divide the first time stamp into two parts comprising a first part and a second part (¶59, Stokking discloses splitting a Network Time Protocol (NTP) timestamp into two portions), the first part comprising a second time stamp at a lower resolution than the first time stamp (¶59, Stokking discloses that the first portion is a most significant word where the most significant word is the 32 most significant bits of the 64 bit NTP timestamp. Here, the MSBs, or MSW, has a lower resolution than the NTP timestamp because the NTP timestamp can represent time at a higher resolution of 1, or 20, whereas the MSW can only represent time at a resolution of 232) and the second part comprising one or more remaining bits of the first time stamp (¶59, Stokking discloses that the second portion is a least significant word (LSW) where the least significant word is the 32 least significant bits of the 64 bit NTP timestamp);
a frame generator module (¶103, Stokking discloses a user equipment (UE) where the UE is implemented via a computer) arranged to insert the two parts into different fields (¶59 & Fig. 4, Stokking discloses that the MSW is inserted into a NTP Timestamp (most significant word) field and the LSW is inserted into a NTP Timestamp (least significant word) field) within a single frame or within two separate frames (¶59 & Fig. 4, Stokking discloses that the NTP Timestamp (most significant word) field and the NTP Timestamp (least significant word) field reside within a RTCP Extended Report (XR)); and
a wireless transmitter (¶103, Stokking discloses a user equipment (UE) where the UE is implemented via a computer. ¶59, Stokking discloses the UE is capable of transmitting therefore Examiner identifies the wireless transmitter as an inherent feature) arranged to transmit the single or two separate frames comprising the different fields containing the two parts of the first time stamp (¶59 & Fig. 4, Stokking discloses transmitting, by the UE, the RTCP XR report comprising the NTP Timestamp (most significant word) field and the NTP Timestamp (least significant word) field) to a receiving wireless station (¶59 & Fig. 4, Stokking discloses receiving, by a Media Synchronization Application Servers (MSAS) from the UE, the RTCP XR report. Examiner correlates the MSAS to “a receiving wireless station”) for synchronizing a local clock (See MPEP 2111.04: Here, the intended result of “for synchronizing a local clock” does not impart a patentable distinction if the intended result merely states an intention).
However, Stokking does not disclose a receiving station that is a receiving wireless station.
Xie, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a receiving station that is a receiving wireless station (¶16 & Fig. 1, Xie discloses that the home media server is a wireless home media server with a wireless network interface where the wireless network interface is used to communicate with other stations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stokking by a receiving station that is a receiving wireless station as taught by Xie because user experience, in an environment where multiple different receivers are competing for channel time to deliver a stream, is improved by meeting latency and throughput requirements while limiting memory footprint requirements (Xie, ¶1-4).
However, Stokking in view of Xie does not disclose a clock and a time stamp generation module arranged to generate a first time stamp using the clock.
Huang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches
a clock (¶10, Huang discloses first communications system comprising a clock 36);
a time stamp generation module (¶10 & Fig. 3, Huang discloses first communications system comprising a processor 302) arranged to generate a first time stamp using the clock (¶10, Huang discloses generating, by the first communications system, a timestamp according to a first clock 36 of the first communications system 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stokking in view of Xie by requiring a clock and a time stamp generation module arranged to generate a first time stamp using the clock as taught by Huang because improving the calculation of one-way travel time when the network exhibits asymmetrical latencies (Huang, ¶2-4).
Regarding Claim 2, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang discloses the wireless station according to claim 1.
Stoking further discloses the frame generator module is arranged to insert the first part into a first field within the single and the second part into a second field within the same single frame (¶59 & Fig. 4, Stokking discloses that the NTP Timestamp (most significant word) field and the NTP Timestamp (least significant word) field reside within a RTCP Extended Report (XR)).
Regarding Claim 3, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang discloses the wireless station according to claim 1.
Stokking further discloses the first part comprises a plurality of most significant bits from the first time stamp (¶59, Stokking discloses that the first portion is a most significant word where the most significant word is the 32 most significant bits of the 64 bit NTP timestamp).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 20, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang discloses the method according to claim 16.
Stokking further discloses the second part comprises all the remaining bits of the first time stamp (¶59, Stokking discloses that the second portion of the timestamp is a least significant word where the least significant word is the 32 least significant bits of the 64 bit NTP timestamp).
Claims 8, 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stokking in view of Xie in view of Huang in further view of Wentink et al. (US 20140314068 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wentink”).
Regarding Claim 8, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang discloses the wireless station according to claim 1.
However, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang does not explicitly disclose at least one of the single or two separate frames is a beacon frame.
Wentink, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches at least one of the single or two separate frames is a beacon frame (¶5 & ¶34 & ¶31, Wentink discloses a beacon frame comprising timestamp information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stoking in view of Xie in further view of Huang by requiring that at least one of the single or two separate frames is a beacon frame as taught by Wentink because synchronizing timing between wireless networking devices by exchanging frames including a timestamp is improved by implementing a timestamp refresh interval (Abstract & ¶5).
Regarding Claim 9, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang discloses the wireless station according to claim 1.
However, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang does not explicitly disclose the wireless station is an access point.
Wentink, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the wireless station is an access point (¶34 & ¶31, Wentink discloses an access point where the access point is compatible with IEEE 802.11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang by requiring that the wireless station is an access point as taught by Wentink because synchronizing timing between wireless networking devices by exchanging frames including a timestamp is improved by implementing a timestamp refresh interval (Abstract & ¶5).
Regarding Claim 10, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang discloses the wireless station according to claim 1.
However, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang does not disclose the wireless station is a WiFi station.
Wentink, a prior art reference from the same field of endeavor, teaches the wireless station is a WiFi station (¶34 & ¶31, Wentink discloses a device where the device is compatible with IEEE 802.11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang by requiring that the wireless station is a WiFi station as taught by Wentink because synchronizing timing between wireless networking devices by exchanging frames including a timestamp is improved by implementing a timestamp refresh interval (Abstract & ¶5).
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stokking in view of Xie in view of Huang in further view of Unknown (How NTP Represents the Time (Computer Time Synchronization), See PTO-892: Non-Patent Literature: Reference U; hereinafter referred to as “NTPHowTo”).
Regarding Claim 4, Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang discloses a wireless station according to claim 3.
However, Stokking does not disclose the first time stamp comprises at least 64 bits, and the first part comprises the 64 most significant bits from the first time stamp.
NPTHowTo, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the first time stamp comprises at least 64 bits (Pg. 2, NTPHowTo discloses a date stamp having a length of 128 bits which is at least 64 bits), and the first part comprises the 64 most significant bits from the first time stamp (Pg. 2, NTPHowTo discloses that the era number and the second since era epoch comprise the 64 most significant bits (MSBs) from the NTP datestamp).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Stokking in view of Xie in further view of Huang by requiring that the first time stamp comprises at least 64 bits, and the first part comprises the 64 most significant bits from the first time stamp as taught by NTPHowTo because datestamp offers a higher resolution of approximately 500 atto-seconds (NTPHowTo, Pg. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 16 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.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474