DETAILED ACTION
The amendments and remarks filed 8/25/2025 were received. No claims were canceled or added. Claims 1-7, 10-14, and 27-34 are pending.
APPLICANT’S REPLY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b)
Applicant’s reply does not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b), which states:
In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner's action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. (emphasis added)
As background, the Request for Continued Examination filed 9/26/2025 requested consideration of the amendments and remarks previously filed 8/25/2025. While the claim amendments were not entered after-final, Applicant’s arguments in the remarks focused on limitations of the claims as filed on 5/19/2025. The Examiner already considered and responded to Applicant’s remarks filed 8/25/2025 in the Advisory Action dated 8/28/2025. Applicant presents the same remarks again. Upon further consideration, Examiner’s reply has not changed.
The reason why Applicant’s reply does not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) is because the Examiner has provided both (a) citation to the teachings of the prior references and (b) explicit in their interpretation of the claims and how the teachings of the references map to the claim limitations while the reply merely provides Applicant’s own understanding and interpretation of the prior art references without refuting the Examiner’s specific claim interpretation and mapping. As such, Applicant fails to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the examiner's action. Applicant’s remarks merely explain Applicant’s understanding of the portions of the prior art cited by the Examiner without and allege that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference as interpreted and mapped to the claims by the Examiner. For these reasons, Applicant’s reply does not comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b). In addition, the Examiner already replied to Applicant in the advisory action.
Applicant is reminded that during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP 2111.
Applicant is requested to ensure that further replies comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b).
PRIOR ART
The following references are prior art:
1. (2/20/2025 PTO-892) Appl. No. 17/037,549 (Moon1) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) since it was published as US 2021/0099341 A1, names another inventor (Sangjun MOON), and was effectively filed Sep. 30, 2019 before Apr. 23, 2020, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given that KR 10-2019-0121218 (English translations provided herewith) filed Sep. 30, 2019 describes the subject matter of Moon1 relied on in the rejection (e.g., the subject matter of [0087]-[0088] of Moon1 is described in [0034]-[0035] of the priority application).
2. (6/26/2025 PTO-892) US 2020/0053678 A1 (Moon3) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) since it published on Feb. 13, 2020 before Apr. 23, 2020, the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The Examiner notes that Appl. No. 17/786,165 published as US 2022/0394647 A1 (see 2/20/2025 PTO-892) was referred to as “Moon2” on p. 14 of the non-final rejection dated 2/20/2025, which is why US 2020/0053678 A1 is referred to as “Moon3” here.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
From Applicant’s remarks it appears that there is a difference between the Examiner’s claim interpretation and Applicant’s claim interpretation but since Applicant has not specifically address the Examiner’s explicit claim mapping then the Examiner is not sure where the difference lies.
Perhaps the difference lies in the term “indicative,” as in the limitation “the first time stamp is indicative of a time of handling.” The prior art and the Specification fail to provide a special definition of this term and so the plain an ordinary meaning is used. See MPEP 2111. The plain meaning of indicative is “serving as a sign or indication of something.” Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation the claimed “first time stamp” merely serves as a sign or indication of a time of handling, rather than actually marking or being the time of handling itself.
CLAIM REJECTIONS — 35 U.S.C. 103
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:
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1, 4, 5-7, 10-13, 27, 29-33, & 51
Claims 1, 4, 5-7, 10-13, 27, 29-33, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon1 in view of Moon3 for the reasons given below.
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, Moon1 taught:
A method of determining a radio device residence time (RDRT) for a radio device in radio communication with a network node of a telecommunications network (Moon1 taught [0071] FIG. 3 illustrates a method in which the 5G network supports TSN time synchronization. [0072] the UE may calculate Residence Time and Link Delay, based on a 5G GM-based time of the moment when Ingress Time recorded as a 5G GM-based time and Sync Frame are transmitted to the TSN Node. The UE may generate Sync Frame by updating a Correction field by using the Residence Time and the Link Delay, and may transmit the generated Sync Frame to the TSN node connected to the UE. [0085] taught that FIG. 10 is a flowchart of an inter-UE Time Synchronization scenario.),
the method, being performed by the radio device, the method comprising the steps of: setting at the radio device, a first time stamp of a packet of the radio communication, wherein the first time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at a first layer of a protocol stack at the radio device (Moon1 taught [0066] a time synchronization principle on Ethernet of TSN. [0072] the 5G network including a UE, a gNB, and an UPF is modelled to one TSN Bridge (TSN node) of FIG. 1. In other words, UPF-gNB-UE as the 5G network may operate as a single TSN node, and this TSN node may support TSN by updating Sync Frame by correcting Link Delay and Residence Time. To this end, it is assumed that the UPF, the gNB, and the UE within the 5G network are synchronized with a common 5G GM. For example, the gNB may be connected to a GPS, the UPF may be connected to the gNB via Ethernet-based TSN and synchronized with the gNB, and the UE may be synchronized with the gNB by transmitting and receiving PHY Frame to and from the gNB… the UE may calculate Residence Time and Link Delay, based on a 5G GM-based time of the moment when Ingress Time recorded as a 5G GM-based time and Sync Frame are transmitted to the TSN Node. The UE may generate Sync Frame by updating a Correction field by using the Residence Time and the Link Delay, and may transmit the generated Sync Frame to the TSN node connected to the UE. [0086] When DS-TT1 or UE1 receives Sync Frame from TSN Node0 as an external TSN node, DS-TT1 or UE1 records a reception time, based on the 5G GM. For convenience of explanation, UE1 performance of the above recording operation will now be described. However, DS-TT1 may perform the recording operation. When UE1 transmits Sync Frame to an UPF, UE1 may also transmit a value recorded based on the 5G GM. For example, UE1 may send reception time information by adding a special Ingress Timestamp field to Sync Frame… UE1 may set a reception time of Sync Frame as "a Correction field value including Link Delay 1 converted based on TSN GM+ TSN GM", and thus may synchronize with the TSN GM. [0087] After a NW-TT or UPF receives Sync Frame from DS-TT1 or UE1, the NW-TT or UPF calculates Residence Time as a residence time in the 5G network and thus updates the Correction field, before transmitting the received Sync Frame to TSN Node4 as an external TSN node. Moon1 [FIG. 10] illustrates Sync (GM TS, Residence Time0 + Link Delay 1, rateRatio1, Ingress 5G GM TS). The Examiner finds that Moon1 taught the method being performed by the radio device (i.e., the UE1 with DS-TT1), the method comprising the radio device (i.e., UE1) setting at the radio device (i.e., the UE1 with DS-TT1), a first time stamp of a packet of the radio communication (i.e., Ingress 5G GM TS), wherein the first time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at a first layer of a protocol stack at the radio device (i.e., the Ingress 5G GM TS ingress timestamp of the layer 2 Ethernet sync frame from TSN Node is included in the updated correction field (Resident Time0 + Link Delay1, rateRatio1, Ingress 5G GM TS) which indicates handling of the sync frame at layer2/Ethernet, along with handling at other layers, since it indicates the Residence Time of the Sync frame in the 5G network which includes multiple layers (physical layer 1, layer 2, etc.));
and the radio device transmitting the packet to the network node through a second layer of the protocol stack, the second layer being below the first layer in the protocol stack (Moon1 [0087] taught that after a NW-TT or UPF receives Sync Frame from DS-TT1 or UE1. Moon1 [0072] taught that the UE may be synchronized with the gNB by transmitting and receiving PHY Frame to and from the gNB. The Examiner finds that Moon1 taught the radio device (i.e., UE1) transmitting the packet (i.e., Sync frame) to the network node (i.e., to the UPF via gNB) through a second layer of the protocol stack (i.e., the layer1/physical layer/PHY), the second layer being below the first layer in the protocol stack (i.e., layer1/PHY is below layer2/Ethernet)),
the packet comprising (A) RDRT information specifying an RDRT determined based on a difference between the first time stamp of the packet and a second time stamp of the packet set at the radio device, wherein the second time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at the second layer of the radio device, and/or (B) the first time stamp of the packet and the second time stamp of the packet set at the radio device, wherein the second time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at the second layer of the radio device, wherein the packet is configured to initiate determining, at the telecommunications network, the RDRT based on the difference between the first time stamp and the second time stamp (Moon1 [0087] taught that after a NW-TT or UPF receives Sync Frame from DS-TT1 or UE1, the NW-TT or UPF calculates Residence Time… The UPF calculates Residence Time by subtracting an Ingress Timestamp value received from UE1, from an egress time when Sync Frame is transmitted to the outside… The UPF may set a time point to transmit Sync Frame as "TSN GM + Correction field value", and thus may synchronize with the TSN GM. Moon1 [0088] taught that Residence Time at a single TSN Node is unable to exceed 10 ms, and thus a QoS requirement that a sum of UE-DS-TT ResiTime1 as UL UE-DS-TT Residence Time for DS-TT1 or UE1 and PDB1 as a UL PDB of PDU Session1 is less than 10 ms needs to be applied. The Examiner finds that Moon1 taught (B) the ingress time stamp from the UE (i.e., first time stamp of the packet for determining the residence time/RDRT) based on a difference between the ingress time stamp (i.e., first time stamp) and the egress time stamp of the Sync frame (i.e., a second time stamp of the packet), wherein the Sync frame is configurated to initiate setting the egress time stamp when handled by the UPF (upon handling the packet at the telecommunications network)).
Moon1 taught the limitations of claim 1 discussed above but failed to explicitly teach that the RDRT information “specifying an RDRT determined based on a difference between the first time stamp of the packet and a second time stamp of the packet set at the radio device, wherein the second time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at the second layer of the radio device” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner notes that (A) “and/or” (B) in claim 1 makes the following limitations optional and not required to be performed: “(B) the first time stamp of the packet and the second time stamp of the packet set at the radio device, wherein the second time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at the second layer of the radio device, wherein the packet is configured to initiate determining, at the telecommunications network, the RDRT based on the difference between the first time stamp and the second time stamp.” See MPEP 2111.04.
With respect to claim 1, Moon3 taught:
setting, at the radio device, a first time stamp of a packet of the radio communication, wherein the first time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at a first layer of a protocol stack at the radio device (also taught by Moon1 as discussed above); and RDRT information specifying an RDRT determined based on a difference between the first time stamp of the packet and a second time stamp of the packet set at the radio device, wherein the second time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at the second layer of the radio device (Moon3 taught [0082] Referring to FIG. 8, in operation 801, the base station may receive, from a terminal, information on a residence time of the terminal and a transmission time of an uplink Ethernet frame. For example, the terminal may calculate a time during which the uplink Ethernet frame stays at the terminal, i.e., a residence time of the terminal, and the base station may receive, from the terminal, information on a residence time of the terminal and a time at which the terminal transmits the uplink Ethernet frame. [0090] Referring to FIG. 10, an Ethernet frame enters a wireless communication network through the terminal 120, and then the terminal 120 and the base station 110 may be processed by an SDAP and a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP). The base station 110 may not read or modify the Ethernet frame. In addition, communication between the terminal 120 and the base station 110 may be performed using a media access control (MAC)/radio link control (RLC)/physical layer (PHY) frame synchronized with the clock of the base station 110. [0092] Referring to FIG. 11, the terminal 120, the base station 110, and the UPF 130c may perform residence time correction for each entity. Each entity may calculate a time during which an uplink Ethernet stays in each entity as R (residence time)_ UE, R_gNB, and R_ UPF. The terminal 120 may enable R_UE and a time (T)_UL at which the uplink Ethernet is transmitted to the base station 110 to be included in the SDAP, and may transmit the SDAP to the base station 110. In various embodiments, T_UL may be determined using an MAC/RLC/PHY frame time commonly known by the base station 110 and the terminal 120. That is, the frame time of MAC/RLC/PHY at the time when the terminal 120 transmits the uplink Ethernet may be recorded as T_UL. The Examiner finds that Moon3 taught setting, at the radio device (i.e., UE), a first time stamp of a packet of the radio communication (i.e., T_UL the time of transmitting the uplink Ethernet), wherein the first time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at a first layer of a protocol stack at the radio device (i.e., it indicates the time during which the uplink Ethernet stays in the UE); and RDRT information specifying an RDRT (i.e., the R_UE residence time that the uplink Ethernet stayed at the UE) determined based on a difference between the first time stamp of the packet and a second time stamp of the packet set at the radio device (i.e., the difference between T_UL when the UE transmitted the uplink ethernet to the base station and the time at which the uplink Ethernet was received at the UE), wherein the second time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at the second layer of the radio device (i.e., the UE communicates with the base station using a MAC/RLC/PHY frame that is handled at the PHY/physical layer.)).
The Examiner finds that it 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 to modify Moon1’s wireless communication synchronization technique to incorporate Moon3’s residence time calculation technique with the motivation to overcome difficulties in wireless UL/DL clock synchronizations (as discussed in Moon3 [0007]) which are solved using the Moon3’s clock synchronization technique (e.g., as discussed in [0089]).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 4, Moon3 taught:
further comprising the step of: setting the second time stamp of the packet at the radio device (Moon3 taught [0082] Referring to FIG. 8, in operation 801, the base station may receive, from a terminal, information on a residence time of the terminal and a transmission time of an uplink Ethernet frame. For example, the terminal may calculate a time during which the uplink Ethernet frame stays at the terminal, i.e., a residence time of the terminal, and the base station may receive, from the terminal, information on a residence time of the terminal and a time at which the terminal transmits the uplink Ethernet frame. [0090] Referring to FIG. 10, an Ethernet frame enters a wireless communication network through the terminal 120, and then the terminal 120 and the base station 110 may be processed by an SDAP and a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP). The base station 110 may not read or modify the Ethernet frame. In addition, communication between the terminal 120 and the base station 110 may be performed using a media access control (MAC)/radio link control (RLC)/physical layer (PHY) frame synchronized with the clock of the base station 110. [0092] Referring to FIG. 11, the terminal 120, the base station 110, and the UPF 130c may perform residence time correction for each entity. Each entity may calculate a time during which an uplink Ethernet stays in each entity as R (residence time)_ UE, R_gNB, and R_ UPF. The terminal 120 may enable R_UE and a time (T)_UL at which the uplink Ethernet is transmitted to the base station 110 to be included in the SDAP, and may transmit the SDAP to the base station 110. In various embodiments, T_UL may be determined using an MAC/RLC/PHY frame time commonly known by the base station 110 and the terminal 120. That is, the frame time of MAC/RLC/PHY at the time when the terminal 120 transmits the uplink Ethernet may be recorded as T_UL.).
The Examiner finds that it 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 to modify Moon1’s wireless communication synchronization technique to incorporate Moon3’s residence time calculation technique with the motivation to overcome difficulties in wireless UL/DL clock synchronizations (as discussed in Moon3 [0007]) which are solved using the Moon3’s clock synchronization technique (e.g., as discussed in [0089]).
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 4 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 5, Moon3 taught:
further comprising the step of: determining, at the radio device, the RDRT based on the difference between the first time stamp of the packet and the second time stamp of the packet set at the radio device (Moon3 taught [0082] Referring to FIG. 8, in operation 801, the base station may receive, from a terminal, information on a residence time of the terminal and a transmission time of an uplink Ethernet frame. For example, the terminal may calculate a time during which the uplink Ethernet frame stays at the terminal, i.e., a residence time of the terminal, and the base station may receive, from the terminal, information on a residence time of the terminal and a time at which the terminal transmits the uplink Ethernet frame. [0090] Referring to FIG. 10, an Ethernet frame enters a wireless communication network through the terminal 120, and then the terminal 120 and the base station 110 may be processed by an SDAP and a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP). The base station 110 may not read or modify the Ethernet frame. In addition, communication between the terminal 120 and the base station 110 may be performed using a media access control (MAC)/radio link control (RLC)/physical layer (PHY) frame synchronized with the clock of the base station 110. [0092] Referring to FIG. 11, the terminal 120, the base station 110, and the UPF 130c may perform residence time correction for each entity. Each entity may calculate a time during which an uplink Ethernet stays in each entity as R (residence time)_ UE, R_gNB, and R_ UPF. The terminal 120 may enable R_UE and a time (T)_UL at which the uplink Ethernet is transmitted to the base station 110 to be included in the SDAP, and may transmit the SDAP to the base station 110. In various embodiments, T_UL may be determined using an MAC/RLC/PHY frame time commonly known by the base station 110 and the terminal 120. That is, the frame time of MAC/RLC/PHY at the time when the terminal 120 transmits the uplink Ethernet may be recorded as T_UL.).
The Examiner finds that it 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 to modify Moon1’s wireless communication synchronization technique to incorporate Moon3’s residence time calculation technique with the motivation to overcome difficulties in wireless UL/DL clock synchronizations (as discussed in Moon3 [0007]) which are solved using the Moon3’s clock synchronization technique (e.g., as discussed in [0089]).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 6, Moon1 taught:
wherein handling the packet at the first layer and/or at the second layer comprises at least one of: arrival of the packet at the respective layer; and forwarding of the packet from the respective layer of the protocol stack at the radio device to another layer in the protocol stack at the radio device or to the network node (Moon1 [0072] taught that the UE may be synchronized with the gNB by transmitting and receiving PHY Frame to and from the gNB. Moon1 [FIG. 10] illustrates “PDU Session Establishment (UE MAC / Port Info updates to TSN AF)” and illustrates UE1 with DS-TT1 sending Sync to the UPF with NW-TT. The Examiner finds that the handling of the Sync frame (i.e., packet) at the Session layer (first layer) and/or at the PHY (second layer) comprises arrival of the Sync frame via 5G PHY (layer 1) and forwarding it up to the session layer1).
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 7, Moon1 taught:
wherein the first layer of the protocol stack handles the packet according to a time sensitive network, TSN and/or the first layer and/or the second layer of the protocol stack handles the packet according to a radio access technology (RAT) of the radio communication (Moon1 [0072] taught a method in which the 5G network supports TSN… the UPF, the gNB, and the UE within the 5G network are synchronized with a common 5G GM. For example, the gNB may be connected to a GPS, the UPF may be connected to the gNB via Ethernet-based TSN and synchronized with the gNB, and the UE may be synchronized with the gNB by transmitting and receiving PHY Frame to and from the gNB. The UPF may be connected to a TSN node of a wired network, and the UE may also be connected to a TSN node of a wired network.),
the first layer comprises: (A) a TSN application layer of the protocol stack; (B) a translator configured to translate packets between a domain of the TSN and a domain of the radio-communication; (C) an ingress point to the TSN application layer, which is above a RAT of the radio communication within the protocol stack at the radio device; and/or (D) an ingress point to layers comprising a RAT of the radio communication within the protocol stack at the radio device, which is below a TSN application layer (Moon1 [0073]-[0074] taught a Management function of TSN according to an embodiment of the disclosure. There are two types of TSN nodes: a bridge and an end-station. A bridge from among the TSN nodes may send its own Port configuration and its own Scheduling capability to a centralized network configuration (CNC) server, and an end-station from among the TSN nodes may send, to the CNC server, information of time sensitive communication (TSC) Stream 1 that is transmitted/received. Moon1 [0075]-[0076] taught a structure in which the 5G network interoperates with TSN Management, according to an embodiment of the disclosure. Connection between a UPF and external TSN may be performed by a logical function block called a Network-side TSN Translator (NW-TT), and connection between a UE and external TSN may be performed by a logical function block called a Device-Side TSN Translator (DS-TT). They may transmit information as Port within a single logical TSN Bridge as the 5G network to a TSN AF, and the TSN AF may perform Management interoperation with external TSN. Moon1 [0082] taught interoperation between a 5G network and TSN Management due to the TSN AF collecting information of a NW-TT/UPF and a DS-TT/UE and exchanging the collected information with the CNC server as shown in FIG. 5 has been described above with reference to FIG. 2. In this case, an Establishment/Modification process with respect to a single PDU Session including a NW-TT/UPF and a DS-TT/ UE is used. The Examiner finds that (A) the Session layer (first layer) is used for an TSN Establishment/Modification processor (i.e., a TSN application layer); and (B) NW-TT/UPF and a DS-TT/UE (TSN translators (TT)) are configured to translate packets between a domain of the TSN and a domain of the 5G radio-communication and may (C) transmit information as a Port within the TSB bridge (i.e., ingress point to the TSN application layer) as the 5G network to a TSN AF.)
and the second layer comprises: a Packet Data Convergence Protocol layer of the radio device; a Radio Link Control layer of the radio device; a Medium Access Control layer of the radio device; and/or a Physical layer of the radio device (Moon1 [0072] taught that the UE may be synchronized with the gNB by transmitting and receiving PHY (i.e., Physical layer) Frame to and from the gNB.).
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim1 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 10, Moon1 taught:
further comprising the step of: receiving, at the radio device, a message indicative of scheduling information of at least one of an uplink (UL) transmission from the radio device and a downlink (DL) transmission to the radio device, wherein the scheduling information is based on the determined RDRT (Moon1 [0074] taught that the CNC server may inform schedule information at each TSN node for each stream, and the TSN nodes may reflect the schedule information to ensure that the stream is delivered while undergoing a certain delay. Moon1 [0133] taught that the SMF may change the received Schedule information, based on a SGS Clock, and may add a CN PDB to a result of the changing. Referring to FIG. 19B, translate (schedule2) has been represented. At this time, the TSN AF may change DS-TT-UE Residence Time and a UL PDB based on a SGS GM Clock to those based on a TSN GM Clock.).
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 10 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 11, Moon1 taught:
wherein the scheduling information is further based on at least one of a packet delay budget (PDB) and an end-to-end delay requirement (Moon1 [0015] taught that second schedule information for the second PDU session may correspond to a result of (first schedule information for the first PDU session)+(device-side TSN translator (DS-TT-UE) residence time for uplink (UL))+(UL [Packet Delay Budget] PDB)+(UE-to-UE UPF Residence Time)-(downlink (DL) residence time). Moon1 [0088] taught that Residence Time at a single TSN Node is unable to exceed 10 ms, and thus a QoS requirement that a sum of UE-DS-TT ResiTime1 as UL UE-DS-TT Residence Time for DS-TT1 or UE1 and PDB1 as a UL PDB of PDU Session1 is less than 10 ms needs to be applied. The Examiner finds that the Residence Time at a single TSN Node being unable to exceed 10 ms is an end-to-end delay requirement).
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 11 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 12, Moon1 taught:
wherein the PDB or the end-to-end delay requirement is provided by or received from at least one of: a time sensitive network; a Centralized User Configuration entity; the radio device; and an application of the radio device (Moon1 [0088] taught that Residence Time at a single TSN Node is unable to exceed 10 ms, and thus a QoS requirement that a sum of UE-DS-TT ResiTime1 as UL UE-DS-TT Residence Time for DS-TT1 or UE1 and PDB1 as a UL PDB of PDU Session1 is less than 10 ms needs to be applied.).
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 10 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 13, Moon1 taught:
wherein the scheduling information is indicative of a transmission opportunity, which is a function of the determined RDRT (Moon1 [0074] taught that in this case, a total delay time at Bridges 1 through 4 is 16 ms, and thus the CNC server may transmit, to each TSN nodes (Bridge Node), scheduling information indicating that Stream 1 needs to be transmitted with a predetermined delay time of 10 ms or less. Moon1 [0088] taught that Residence Time at a single TSN Node is unable to exceed 10 ms, and thus a QoS requirement that a sum of UE-DS-TT ResiTime1 as UL UE-DS-TT Residence Time for DS-TT1 or UE1 and PDB1 as a UL PDB of PDU Session1 is less than 10 ms needs to be applied).
Claim 27
Claim 27 recites limitations similar to claim 10 in combination with claim 1 upon which claim 10 depends. Claim 27 is rejected by the reasoning given for claims 1 and 10.
Claim 29
With respect to claim 29, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 27 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 29, Moon1 taught:
wherein the second time stamp is set at least at one of: arrival of the packet at the network node, egress to a first layer of the protocol stack at the network node, and egress to the telecommunications network or a TSN (Moon1 [0087] taught that after a NW-TT or UPF receives Sync Frame from DS-TT1 or UE1, the NW-TT or UPF calculates Residence Time… The UPF calculates Residence Time by subtracting an Ingress Timestamp value received from UE1, from an egress time when Sync Frame is transmitted to the outside).
Claim 30
With respect to claim 30, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 29 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 30, Moon1 taught:
wherein the first layer comprises at least one of an Internet Protocol (IP) layer, a transport layer and an application layer (Moon1 [0084] taught that a TSN [Application Function] AF may collect TSN-related information by using two PDU sessions. Referring to FIG. 9, collected PDU session information may interoperate with a CNC server via the TSN AF. The Examiner finds that the PDU session includes the TSN AF (i.e., application layer)).
Claim 31
Claim 31 recites limitations similar to claim 5 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 32
With respect to claim 32, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 31 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 32, Moon1 taught:
wherein the determining of the RDRT is further based on a time offset comprising i) a duration of handling the packet at the second layer and/or ii) a duration of radio propagation of the transmitted packet from the radio device to the network node (Moon1 [0072] taught that the UPF records Ingress Time of the received Sync Frame as a time point based on the 5G GM. The UPF may periodically calculate and manage Link Delay with the TSN node connected to the UPF. The UPF may deliver Sync Frame including Ingress Time and Link Delay to the UE. The UE may calculate Residence Time, which is a residence time within the 5G network, as a 5G GM-based time of the moment when Sync Frame is transmitted to the TSN node connected to the UE.).
Claim 33
With respect to claim 33, Moon1 in view of Moon3 taught:
The method of claim 27 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 33, Moon1 taught:
wherein the step of receiving the packet comprises: receiving one or more re-transmissions of the packet; decoding the packet at the network node; and/or combining segments of the packet at the network node (Moon1 [0082] taught that pieces of information of the NW-TT/UPF and the DS-TT/UE are collected for a single PDU session. Moon1 [0087] taught that after a NW-TT or UPF receives Sync Frame from DS-TT1 or UE1).
Claim 52
Claim 52 recites limitations similar to limitation (B) of claim 1 and is rejected for those reasons along with the following reasons.
With respect to claim, Moon 1 taught
the packet the first time stamp and the second time stamp, the second time stamp is indicative of the time of handling the packet at the second layer of the radio device, wherein the packet is configured to cause the network to determine the RDRT based on the difference between the first time stamp and the second time stamp (Moon1 [0087] taught that after a NW-TT or UPF receives Sync Frame from DS-TT1 or UE1, the NW-TT or UPF calculates Residence Time… The UPF calculates Residence Time by subtracting an Ingress Timestamp value received from UE1, from an egress time when Sync Frame is transmitted to the outside… The UPF may set a time point to transmit Sync Frame as "TSN GM + Correction field value", and thus may synchronize with the TSN GM. Moon1 [0088] taught that Residence Time at a single TSN Node is unable to exceed 10 ms, and thus a QoS requirement that a sum of UE-DS-TT ResiTime1 as UL UE-DS-TT Residence Time for DS-TT1 or UE1 and PDB1 as a UL PDB of PDU Session1 is less than 10 ms needs to be applied. The Examiner finds that Moon1 taught the ingress time stamp from the UE (i.e., first time stamp of the packet for determining the residence time/RDRT) based on a difference between the ingress time stamp (i.e., first time stamp) and the egress time stamp of the Sync frame (i.e., a second time stamp of the packet), wherein the Sync frame is configurated to initiate setting the egress time stamp when handled by the UPF (upon handling the packet at the telecommunications network)).
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 14, 34, 50, and 51
Claims 14, 34, 50, and 51 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
The Examiner responds below to Applicant’s remarks filed 8/25/2025.
Arguments regarding the §112(b) rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments cancelling the claims at issue. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Arguments regarding §103 rejection
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant discussed paragraph 80, 90, and 92 of Moon3, emphasizing that Moon3 states "[t]he base station 110 may not read or modify the Ethernet frame" and then concluded that "the Office has not pointed to any evidence that Moon3 discloses "the packet comprising ... RDRT information specifying an RDRT determined based on a difference between the first time stamp of the packet and a second time stamp of the packet set at the radio device, wherein the second time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at the second layer of the radio device," as required by claim 1.
The Examiner disagrees and notes that they have provided such evidence, the evidence being Moon3. The Examiner specifically provided their interpretation of the claim language and explained how Moon3's disclosure read on the claim limitations. On page 8 of the Final Rejection the Examiner stated:
The Examiner finds that Moon3 taught setting, at the radio device (1.e., UE), a first time stamp of a packet of the radio communication (1.e., T.UL the time of transmitting the uplink Ethernet), wherein the first time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at a first layer of a protocol stack at the radio device (i.e., it indicates the time during which the uplink Ethernet stays in the UE); and RDRT information specifying an RDRT (i.e., the R_UE residence time that the uplink Ethernet stayed at the UE) determined based on a difference between the first time stamp of the packet and a second time stamp of the packet set at the radio device (1.e., the difference between T UL when the UE transmitted the uplink ethernet to the base station and the time at which the uplink Ethernet was received at the UE), wherein the second time stamp is indicative of a time of handling the packet at the second layer of the radio device (i.e., the UE communicates with the base station using a MAC/RLC/PHY frame that is handled at the PHY/physical layer.)).
Applicant is reminded that during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP 2111.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Davis whose telephone number is 703-756-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 11AM to 7PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/C.R.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2476
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model
Prosecution Insights