DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted December 29, 2025. Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on December 29, 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “Guim fails to teach or suggest specific instructions tailored to prioritize, initiate, and manage timestamp-specific transmission to enhance synchronization at the network edge” (Remarks, p. 8). The Examiner respectfully notes that this is an argument against the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The previous Office action set forth that Closset teaches operations of transmitting synchronization signals between devices within clusters, as well as transmitting between cluster heads. It was further stated that Closset does not explicitly state “sending a first instruction to the boundary radio device… and sending a second instruction to the first radio device” in order to perform the said operations. Guim was relied upon to teach the centralized coordination of edge nodes. After careful review, the Examiner respectfully maintains that Guim teaches this coordination, as well as respective signaling (i.e. sending of instructions) to prompt reporting and/or further signaling between nodes (see, e.g., [0420], [0384]-[0389]).
Applicant also argues “using a random delay to avoid collisions, as disclosed by Gonia, is distinct from sending a first instruction to the boundary radio device to explicitly initiate transmission of first timestamp information received from a third radio device in the second cluster to the first radio device, wherein the first instruction specifies collision avoidance protocols to ensure reliable transmission of the first timestamp information; and sending a second instruction to the first radio device to transmit the first timestamp information to radio devices in the first cluster using a defined time-slot-based signaling collision avoidance mechanism [sic]” (Remarks, pp. 9-10; emphasis added by Applicant). The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner maintains that including information conducive to delay calculation (e.g. Gonia [0142]) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application for the purposes of collision avoidance, Gonia also teaches wireless time division for resource utilization, as well as slot management functionality (figure 4, [0032], [0033]) – all of which teach collision avoidance protocols and/or collision avoidance mechanism(s). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate these latter features from the system of Gonia in order to schedule transmissions.
Applicant also argues “the Office does not provide a specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the cited art to arrive at a system that integrates explicit signaling instructions with collision-avoidance processes specifically tailored for timestamp transmission” (Remarks, p. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the implication that there would have been no motivation to combine. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both the central coordinating functionality of Guim, as well as the management and signaling functionality of Gonia, relate to systems particularly relevant to Closset (e.g. all relate to synchronization of nodes within clusters) with both self-evident and explicitly described advantages. For instance, implementing a centralized coordination functionality for edge devices, such as is described in Guim, improves resource allocation and configuration for those devices (Guim [0088]). Further, implementing signaling, synchronization, and/or resource access functionality, as described in Gonia, improves device synchronization in larger networks, and/or improves resource utilization (Gonia [0005]).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
6. Claims 1, 6-11, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB Publication No. 2,522,200 A (hereinafter “Closset”), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0144517 A1 (hereinafter “Guim”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0290572 A1 (hereinafter “Gonia”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19-21: Closset teaches a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
determining that a first radio device in a first cluster is a neighbor of a boundary radio device in a second cluster of a wireless network (see figure 1 and p. 7; note recognition of clusters and boundary devices);
the boundary radio device to explicitly initiate transmission of first timestamp information received from a third radio device in the second cluster to the first radio device (see, e.g., pp. 7-8; note that messages with timestamp information are forwarded within a cluster, and then exchanged between clusters); and
the first radio device to transmit the first timestamp information to radio devices in the first cluster (see, e.g., pp. 7-8; note that messages with timestamp information are transmitted to nodes within the cluster).
Closset does not explicitly state “sending a first instruction to the boundary radio device… and sending a second instruction to the first radio device” in order to perform the said operations, respectively. However, Guim teaches a system that overlaps much of the system of Closset, and additionally teaches the centralized coordination, management and/or control of edge nodes (see, e.g., [0420]; note also [0105], [0374], [0380]-[0389]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Guim, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Closset, in order to improve synchronization.
Closset modified by Guim does not explicitly state “wherein the first instruction specifies collision avoidance protocols to ensure reliable transmission.,” nor “using a defined time-slot-based signaling collision avoidance mechanism.” However, these features are taught by Gonia (see, e.g., figure 4, [0032], [0033], [0142]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to cluster formation, management, synchronization, and signaling [0007], [0116]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Gonia, such as the collision avoidance, management, and/or signaling functionality, within the system of Closset modified by Guim, in order to improve synchronization.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 1 is applicable to the medium and methods of claims 11 and 19-21, respectively.
Regarding claim 6: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia further teaches wherein the operations further comprise sending a fifth instruction to the third radio device to transmit the first timestamp information (see, e.g., Closset pp. 7-8; also Guim [0420] and [0105], [0374], [0380]; note signaling). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia further teaches wherein the fifth instruction is sent to every radio device in the second cluster (see, e.g., Closset pp. 7-8; also Guim [0420] and [0105], [0374], [0380]; note signaling). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia further teaches wherein the fifth instruction is sent to radio devices in the second cluster that are included in a SynchDistributors list (see, e.g., Gonia [0131]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia further teaches wherein the first instruction is sent to every boundary radio device in the wireless network (see, e.g., Closset pp. 7-8; also Guim [0420] and [0105], [0374], [0380]; note signaling). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia further teaches wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed processing environment (see, e.g., Guim [0419], [0427], [0445], [0447]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 10.
Regarding claim 16: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia further teaches wherein the operations further comprise sending a fourth instruction to a third radio device to transmit the first timestamp information (see, e.g., Closset pp. 7-8; also Guim [0420] and [0105], [0374], [0380]; note signaling). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia further teaches wherein the first instruction is sent to every boundary radio device in the wireless network (see, e.g., Closset pp. 7-8; note that messages with timestamp information are transmitted to nodes within the cluster; also Guim [0420] and [0105], [0374], [0380]; note signaling). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia further teaches wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed processing environment (see, e.g., Guim [0419], [0427], [0445], [0447]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 18.
Regarding claim 22: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia further teaches sending a third instruction to the boundary radio device to transmit the second timestamp information to other radio devices in the other clusters (see, e.g., Closset pp. 7-8; also Guim [0420] and [0105], [0374], [0380]; note signaling). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 21 is applicable to claim 22.
7. Claims 2-4, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Closset, in view of Guim, in further view of Gonia, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0356360 A1 (hereinafter “Van Meurs”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Closset modified by Guim and Gonia substantially teaches the device as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the boundary radio device and the first radio device process the first timestamp information to adjust the first timestamp information for time-of-flight delay. However, this feature is taught by Van Meurs (see, e.g., [0120], [0122], [0141]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Van Meurs, such as the synchronization functionality, within the system of Closset modified by Guim and Gonia, in order to improve timer alignment.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 2 is applicable to the medium of claim 12.
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Closset modified by Guim, Gonia, and Van Meurs further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: sending a third instruction to the first radio device to transmit second timestamp information received from any radio device in the first cluster to the boundary radio device; and sending a fourth instruction to the boundary radio device to transmit the second timestamp information to other radio devices in the second cluster (see, e.g., Closset p. 8; note subsequent computation for other clusters).
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 3 is applicable to the medium of claim 13.
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Closset modified by Guim, Gonia, and Van Meurs further teaches wherein the first radio device coordinates transmission of the first timestamp information with other radio devices in the first cluster (see, e.g., Closset pp. 8-9; note adjustments and/or coordination with respect to other nodes).
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 4 is applicable to the medium of claim 14.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476