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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments, starting on page 5, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant firstly argues that Urano in view of Roden and Orsino do not teach the features of the instant claim because the technical problem to be solved by the cited prior art is different from the technical problem to be solved by the instant application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the instant claim is intended to solve a different technical problem, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Also regarding claim 1, applicant secondly argues that Urano in view of Roden and Orsino do not disclose “wherein the protocol message is based on a 38.331 protocol, the first field is an original field in the protocol message, and the second field is a new field added in the protocol message.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Urano in paragraphs 89-90 discloses SYS_TIME, which may reasonably be interpreted as corresponding to the first field, and disclosed LP_SEC, which may be reasonably be interpreted as effectively corresponding to the second field. SYS_TIME is an original field because, as discussed in Urano, it is a field based on the duration from Jan. 6, 1980. LP_SEC is a comparatively new field because it is dynamic and based on the rotation of the Earth. Urano does not disclose wherein the protocol message is based on a 38.331 protocol, but that is taught by Orisino and would be obvious to combine as discussed later in this action. Thus, Urano in view of Roden and Orsino do teach the cited features of the claim.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims are based on their dependence to claim 1 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano (US 20080165628 A1) in view of Roden (US 20210250059 A1) and Orsino (US 20230217386 A1, wherein all cited portions are supported by provisional US 63012809).
Regarding claim 1, Urano discloses:
“A time synchronization method applied to an electronic device, comprising: receiving an air interface message transmitted by a base station,” ([para 0086]: “The signals transmitted from the CDMA base station 15a also contain a sync channel signal, which is the sync channel message shown in FIG. 12.”)
“and parsing out synchronization time information and leap predication information from the air interface message; and” ([para 0071]: “That is, the signal received by the antenna 11 passes the digital filter 17d and then the deinterleaving and decoding unit 17e after mixing the Walsh code (32) as described above, is demodulated, and is extracted as the sync channel message described below.” ; [para 0089-0090]: “The system time is the cumulative time in 80 ms units from 0:00 on Jan. 6, 1980. This value is contained in the SYS_TIME field in FIG. 12. The sync channel message also contains a leap second value for UTC (Universal Time Code) conversion. This value is contained in the LP_SEC field in FIG. 12.”)
“performing time synchronization with the base station according to the synchronization time information and the leap predication information.” ([para 0098-0099]: “More specifically, after the cell phone receives the sync channel message shown in FIG. 12 from a CDMA base station 15a, the cell phone needs to prepare internally for synchronized communication with the CDMA base station 15a. That is, after preparing to shift to the next stage, standby, the cell phone synchronizes and communicates with the CDMA base station 15a.”)
“wherein the air interface message exists in a form of a protocol message,” (In Figure 12, the field P_REV refers to protocol version.)
“the parsing out the synchronization time information and the leap predication information from the air interface message comprises: parsing out a first field and a second field from the protocol message, wherein the first field carries the synchronization time information, and the second field carries the leap predication information,” ([para 0071]: “That is, the signal received by the antenna 11 passes the digital filter 17d and then the deinterleaving and decoding unit 17e after mixing the Walsh code (32) as described above, is demodulated, and is extracted as the sync channel message described below.” ; [para 0089-0090]: “The system time is the cumulative time in 80 ms units from 0:00 on Jan. 6, 1980. This value is contained in the SYS_TIME field in FIG. 12. The sync channel message also contains a leap second value for UTC (Universal Time Code) conversion. This value is contained in the LP_SEC field in FIG. 12.”)
“wherein … the first field is an original field in the protocol message, and the second field is a new field added in the protocol message..” ([para 0089-0090]: “The system time is the cumulative time in 80 ms units from 0:00 on Jan. 6, 1980. This value is contained in the SYS_TIME field in FIG. 12. The sync channel message also contains a leap second value for UTC (Universal Time Code) conversion. This value is contained in the LP_SEC field in FIG. 12.”)
Urano does not explicitly disclose “wherein after parsing out the synchronization time information and the leap predication information from the air interface message, the time synchronization method further comprises: transmitting first synchronization message that comprises the synchronization time information and the leap predication information to a subordinate device connected to a sender of the first synchronization message, wherein the first synchronization time message is used for the subordinate device to perform time synchronization with the sender according to the synchronization time information and the leap predication information” nor “wherein the protocol message is based on a 38.331 protocol.”
However, Roden discloses the missing feature “wherein after parsing out the synchronization time information and the leap predication information from the air interface message, the time synchronization method further comprises: transmitting first synchronization message that comprises the synchronization time information and the leap predication information to a subordinate device connected to a sender of the first synchronization message, wherein the first synchronization time message is used for the subordinate device to perform time synchronization with the sender according to the synchronization time information and the leap predication information.” ([para 0021]: “Thus, under normal conditions, the accuracy of the timing information 103 provided to the client device 102 can be essentially identical to the timing information the client device 102 would receive directly from the time standard 107.” ; [para 0041]: “For example, the RF clocked device 101 can include a timing information encoder 140 that receives the time and/or date 115, which is encoded and output as timing information 103 for use by the client device 102.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Urano and Roden, to modify the technique as disclosed by Urano, to transmitting synchronization information to a subordinate device as disclosed by Roden. The motivation for doing so is that it would be necessary for synchronization with the subordinate device which would be necessary for functional communication with the subordinate device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Urano with Roden to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Roden also does not explicitly disclose “wherein the protocol message is based on a 38.331 protocol.”
However, Orsino discloses the missing feature “wherein the protocol message is based on a 38.331 protocol.” ([para 0036]: “Time reference information for TSC is provided to the UE 160 in system information (SI) as described in 3GPP TS 38.331 v16.0.0. SIB9 contains information related to Global Positioning System (GPS) time and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). The UE 160 may use the parameters provided in SIB9 to obtain the UTC, the GPS time and the local time.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Urano, Roden, and Orsino, to modify the technique as disclosed by Urano, to utilize a 38.331 protocol as disclosed by Orsino. The motivation for doing so is that it is a standard protocol and thus using it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Urano with Roden and Orsino to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Urano in view of Roden and further in view of Orsino discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano does not explicitly disclose “wherein the protocol message is a system information message SIB9, and the first field and the second field are in a field domain of the SIB9 message for characterizing time information; or the protocol message is a radio resource control message RRC, and the first field and the second field are in a field domain of the RRC message for characterizing reference time information.”
However, Orsino discloses the missing feature “wherein the protocol message is a system information message SIB9, and the first field and the second field are in a field domain of the SIB9 message for characterizing time information; or the protocol message is a radio resource control message RRC, and the first field and the second field are in a field domain of the RRC message for characterizing reference time information.” ([para 0036-0037]: “Time reference information for TSC is provided to the UE 160 in system information (SI) as described in 3GPP TS 38.331 v16.0.0. SIB9 contains information related to Global Positioning System (GPS) time and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). The UE 160 may use the parameters provided in SIB9 to obtain the UTC, the GPS time and the local time. The UE 160 may use the time information for numerous purposes, possibly involving upper layers, e.g., to assist GPS initialization, to synchronize the UE 160 clock. An exemplary SIB9 information element is shown below. The SIB9 information element includes a field denoted referenceTimelnfo-r16, referred to herein as the 5G time reference, which contains the time reference for TSC.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Urano and Orsino, to modify the technique as disclosed by Urano, to utilize SIB9 as disclosed by Orsino. The motivation for doing so is that it is a standard message and thus using it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Urano with Orsino to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Urano in view of Roden and Orsino discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first synchronization message exists in a form of a serial time code, a preset first symbol in the serial time code carries the synchronization time information, and a preset second symbol in the serial time code carries the leap predication information.”
However, Roden discloses the missing feature “wherein the first synchronization message exists in a form of a serial time code, a preset first symbol in the serial time code carries the synchronization time information, and a preset second symbol in the serial time code carries the leap predication information.” ([para 0022]: “The IRIG-B format or timecode is a serial data stream that includes the current date/time as well as a time quality metric called the timing figure of merit (TFOM), thus providing a high degree of system compatibility and ease of integration with existing infrastructure.” ; [para 0041]: “The timing information encoder 140 can encode the time and/or date 115 into any suitable format, such as any standardized format known in the art, and the client device 102 can be operable to receive the timing information 103 in such a format. In one example, the timing information encoder 140 comprises an Inter-Range Instrumentation Group (IRIG) standard format encoder, such as standard IRIG-B format with IEEE-1344 extensions.” Wherein the examiner takes official notice that the use of symbols is well known standardized format.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Urano and Roden, to modify the technique as disclosed by Urano, to utilize a serial time code as disclosed by Roden. The motivation for doing so is that it is a standard message and thus using it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Urano with Roden to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Urano in view of Roden and Orsino discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano does not explicitly disclose “wherein the serial time code is an IRIG-B code.”
However, Roden discloses the missing feature “wherein the serial time code is an IRIG-B code.” ([para 0022]: “The IRIG-B format or timecode is a serial data stream that includes the current date/time as well as a time quality metric called the timing figure of merit (TFOM), thus providing a high degree of system compatibility and ease of integration with existing infrastructure.” ; [para 0041]: “The timing information encoder 140 can encode the time and/or date 115 into any suitable format, such as any standardized format known in the art, and the client device 102 can be operable to receive the timing information 103 in such a format. In one example, the timing information encoder 140 comprises an Inter-Range Instrumentation Group (IRIG) standard format encoder, such as standard IRIG-B format with IEEE-1344 extensions.” Wherein the examiner takes official notice that the use of symbols is well known standardized format.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Urano and Roden, to modify the technique as disclosed by Urano, to utilize an IRIG-B code as disclosed by Roden. The motivation for doing so is that it is a standard message and thus using it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Urano with Roden to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Urano in view of Roden and Orsino discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano further discloses “An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and, a memory communicated with the at least one processor; wherein, the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor,” ([para 0064]: “The RAM 22 is used as working memory by the CPU 21 for executing specific programs and controlling the ROM 23 connected to the bus 20. CPU21 executes specific programs and controls the ROM 23 connected to the bus 20, The ROM 23 stores programs and data.”)
Regarding claim 13, Urano in view of Roden and Orsino discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano further discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer program,” ([para 0064]: “The RAM 22 is used as working memory by the CPU 21 for executing specific programs and controlling the ROM 23 connected to the bus 20. CPU21 executes specific programs and controls the ROM 23 connected to the bus 20, The ROM 23 stores programs and data.”)
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano (US 20080165628 A1) in view of Roden (US 20210250059 A1), Orsino (US 20230217386 A1, wherein all cited portions are supported by provisional US 63012809), and further in view of Xu (US 20210337491 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Urano in view of Roden and Orsino discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano further discloses:
“receiving a second synchronization message transmitted by an external clock source” ([para 0086]: “The signals transmitted from the CDMA base station 15a also contain a sync channel signal, which is the sync channel message shown in FIG. 12.”)
“and parsing out synchronization time information and leap predication information from the second synchronization message; and” ([para 0071]: “That is, the signal received by the antenna 11 passes the digital filter 17d and then the deinterleaving and decoding unit 17e after mixing the Walsh code (32) as described above, is demodulated, and is extracted as the sync channel message described below.” ; [para 0089-0090]: “The system time is the cumulative time in 80 ms units from 0:00 on Jan. 6, 1980. This value is contained in the SYS_TIME field in FIG. 12. The sync channel message also contains a leap second value for UTC (Universal Time Code) conversion. This value is contained in the LP_SEC field in FIG. 12.”)
Urano does not explicitly disclose “transmitting an air interface message that comprises the synchronization time information and the leap predication information to a target device, for the target device performing synchronization time with a sender of the air interface message according to the synchronization time information and the leap predication information.”
However, Xu discloses the missing feature “transmitting an air interface message that comprises the synchronization time information and the leap predication information to a target device, for the target device performing synchronization time with a sender of the air interface message according to the synchronization time information and the leap predication information.” (para 0126]: “The time information may alternatively include the UTC time and a leap second time, so that the terminal calculates the GPS time based on the UTC time and the leap second time.” ; [para 0136]: “For example, the DU may send the SIB including the time information to the UE by using a broadcast message.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Urano and Xu, to modify the technique as disclosed by Urano, to transmitting synchronization information to a subordinate device as disclosed by Xu. The motivation for doing so is that it would be necessary for synchronization with the target device which would be necessary for functional communication with the target device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Urano with Xu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Urano in view of Roden and Orsino and further in view of Xu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano further discloses:
“wherein the air interface message exists in a form of a protocol message,” (In Figure 12, the field P_REV refers to protocol version.)
“the transmitting an air interface message that comprises the synchronization time information and the leap predication information to the target device comprises: writing the synchronization time information into a first field in the protocol message, writing the leap predication information into a second field in the protocol message, and transmitting the protocol message to the target device.” ([para 0089-0090]: “The system time is the cumulative time in 80 ms units from 0:00 on Jan. 6, 1980. This value is contained in the SYS_TIME field in FIG. 12. The sync channel message also contains a leap second value for UTC (Universal Time Code) conversion. This value is contained in the LP_SEC field in FIG. 12.”)
Regarding claim 10, Urano in view of Roden and Orsino and further in view of Xu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano does not explicitly disclose “wherein the external clock source is a satellite clock source or a network clock source.”
However, Xu discloses the missing feature “wherein the external clock source is a satellite clock source or a network clock source.” (para 0124]: “For example, the time information may be a global positioning system (GPS) time obtained by the DU from a clock source, and the GPS time is a time relative to a GPS start time (preset time).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Urano and Xu, to modify the technique as disclosed by Urano, to utilize a network clock source as disclosed by Xu. The motivation for doing so is that it would improve synchronization, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Urano with Xu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Urano in view of Roden and Orsino and further in view of Xu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano further discloses “A server, comprising: at least one processor; and, a memory communicated with the at least one processor; wherein, the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor” ([para 0064]: “The RAM 22 is used as working memory by the CPU 21 for executing specific programs and controlling the ROM 23 connected to the bus 20. CPU21 executes specific programs and controls the ROM 23 connected to the bus 20, The ROM 23 stores programs and data.”)
Regarding claim 14, Urano in view of Roden and further in view of Xu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Urano further discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on non-transitory the computer-readable storage medium, the computer program,” ([para 0064]: “The RAM 22 is used as working memory by the CPU 21 for executing specific programs and controlling the ROM 23 connected to the bus 20. CPU21 executes specific programs and controls the ROM 23 connected to the bus 20, The ROM 23 stores programs and data.”)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached on (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412