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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 49-51 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-14 of copending Application No. 18170985 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are merely in wording or type (apparatus or method) without any substantial differences. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 49, 18170985 discloses:
“A method, comprising: receiving, by a configuration device, a fault identifier, wherein the fault identifier indicates that a time of a first translator in a first network is not synchronized with a clock source in the first network, or indicates that a time of a control device of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network; and” ([claim 24]: “An apparatus for processing a time synchronization fault, comprising: a receiving unit, configured to receive a fault identifier, indicating that time of a first translator in a first network is not synchronized with a clock source in the first network, or indicates that time of an apparatus of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network; and”)
“sending, by the configuration device, a stop command based on the fault identifier, wherein the stop command indicates to the first translator to stop communicating time information with at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator, and the time information is used for obtaining a time that is synchronized with a clock source in a second network.” ([claim 24]: “a sending unit, configured to send a configuration command based on the fault identifier, wherein the configuration command comprises a first status, the configuration command is used to set a port status of a port on the first translator and that communicates with a device to the first status, so as to prevent the port from sending, to the device, time synchronized with a clock source in a second network, and the device is located in the second network.”)
Regarding claim 50, 18170985 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “setting, by the configuration device, a status of a port on a second translator in the first network to a slave state, wherein the second translator is a translator in the first network that is other than the first translator.” ([claim 25]: “a first processing unit, configured to set a status of a port on a second translator in the first network to a slave Slave state based on the fault identifier.”)
Regarding claim 51, 18170985 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “receiving, by the configuration device, a resume identifier, wherein the resume identifier indicates that the time of the first translator is resumed to be synchronized with the clock source in the first network, or indicates that the time of the control device of the first translator is resumed to be synchronized with the clock source in the first network; and configuring, by the configuration device, a port status of a port on each translator in the first network based on the resume identifier.” ([claim 26]: “the receiving unit is further configured to receive a recovery identifier, indicating that time recovery of the first translator is synchronized with the clock source in the first network, or indicates that the time of the apparatus of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network; and the second processing unit is configured to configure, based on the recovery identifier, a port status of a port on each translator in the first network.”)
Claims 31-33, 35-45, 47-48, 52-54, and 56-60 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-14 of copending Application No. 18170985 (reference application) in view of Awad (US 20230141032 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are merely in wording or type (apparatus or method) without any substantial differences. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 31, 18170985 discloses:
“A method, comprising: communicating, by a first translator in a first network, time information with at least one other translator … that is other than the first translator; and when a time of the first translator in the first network is not synchronized with a clock source in the first network,” ([claim 1]: “An apparatus for processing a time synchronization fault, comprising: a processing unit, configured to: when time of a first translator in a first network is not synchronized with a clock source in the first network,”)
“stopping, by the first translator, communicating time information with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator…” ([claim 1]: “stop sending, to a device communicating with the first translator, time synchronized with a clock source in a second network, wherein the device is located in the second network.”)
18170985 does not explicitly disclose “in the first network” nor “wherein the time information is used for obtaining a time that is synchronized with a clock source in a second network.”
However, Awad discloses the missing feature “in the first network” and “wherein the time information is used for obtaining a time that is synchronized with a clock source in a second network.”
([para 0137-0138]: “The first communications device 270a is associated with first DS-TT 402a which may be integrated with, or directly or indirectly connected to the first communications device 270a, and receives timing information from a GM clock source. The second communications device 270b is associated with second DS-TT 402b which may be integrated with, or directly or indirectly connected to the second communications device 270b, and wishes to receive timing information from a GM clock source, via the wireless communications network.”)
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 18170985 and Awad, to implement the technique as disclosed by 18170985, in the network of Awad. The motivation for doing so is that the network in Awad would similarly benefit from the improvements to performance and reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine 18170985 with Awad to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 32, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “sending, by the first translator, a fault identifier to a configuration device in the first network, wherein the fault identifier indicates that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network.” ([claim 7]: “a first sending unit, wherein the first sending unit is configured to send a fault identifier to a configuration device in the first network, wherein the fault identifier indicates that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network; and”)
Regarding claim 33, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “receiving, by the first translator, a stop command sent by the configuration device based on the fault identifier; and wherein stopping, by the first translator, communicating the time information with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator comprises: stopping, by the first translator according to the stop command, communicating the time information with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator.” ([claim 14]: “control a first translator to stop sending, to a device communicating with the first translator, time synchronized with a clock source in a second network, wherein the device is located in the second network” ; [claim 16]: “a sending unit configured to send a control message to the first translator, wherein the control message indicates the first translator to set a port status of a port communicating with the device to a first status, so as to prevent the port from sending the first packet to the device, wherein the first status is a faulty state, a listening state, a disabled state, or a specified state.”)
Regarding claim 35, 18170985 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “stopping, by the first translator, communicating a first packet with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator, wherein the first packet comprises the time information.” ([claim 5]: “stop sending a first packet to the device”)
Regarding claim 36, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “receiving, by the first translator, a second packet; and determining, by the first translator based on the second packet, whether the time of the first translator is synchronized with the clock source in the first network.” ([claim 9]: “a second receiving unit configured to receive a second packet, wherein the second packet is used by the first translator to perform time synchronization with the clock source in the first network; and the processing unit is further configured to determine, based on the second packet, whether the time of the first translator is synchronized with the clock source in the first network.”)
Regarding claim 37, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “wherein determining, by the first translator based on the second packet, whether the time of the first translator is synchronized with the clock source in the first network comprises: when the clock class is lower than a first threshold, determining, by the first translator, that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network.” ([claim 10]: “when the clock class is lower than a first threshold, determine that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network.”)
Regarding claim 38, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “wherein determining, by the first translator based on the second packet, whether the time of the first translator is synchronized with the clock source in the first network comprises: when a time deviation that is between the first translator and the clock source in the first network and that is calculated based on the second packet exceeds a second threshold, determining, by the first translator, that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network.” ([claim 11]: “when a time deviation that is between the first translator and the clock source in the first network obtained through calculation based on the second packet exceeds a second threshold, determine that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network.”)
Regarding claim 39, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “when the first translator does not obtain a second packet within a timeout interval, determining, by the first translator, that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network, wherein the second packet is used by the first translator for performing time synchronization with the clock source in the first network.” ([claim 12]: “when the first translator does not obtain a second packet within a timeout interval, determine that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network, wherein the second packet is used by the first translator to perform time synchronization with the clock source in the first network.”)
Regarding claim 40, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “sending, by the first translator, a resume identifier to a configuration device in the first network, wherein the resume identifier indicates that the time of the first translator is resumed to be synchronized with the clock source in the first network, and the resume identifier is used by the configuration device for configuring a port status of a port on each translator in the first network.” ([claim 13]: “a second sending unit, configured to send a recovery identifier to the configuration device in the first network, wherein the recovery identifier indicates that time recovery of the first translator is synchronized with the clock source in the first network, and the recovery identifier is used by the configuration device to configure a port status of a port on each translator in the first network.”)
Regarding claim 41, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “wherein the second network is a time sensitive network (TSN).” ([claim 3]: “wherein the second network is a time sensitive network (TSN).”)
Regarding claim 42, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “wherein the first network is a fifth generation (5G) network.” ([claim 4]: “wherein the first network is a 5G network.”)
Claims 43-45 and 47-48 of the instant application are similar to claims 31-33 and 35-36 of the instant application with the differences amounting to that claims 31-33 and 35-36 are directed towards a translator while claims 43-45 and 47-48 are directed towards a control device controlling an apparatus. Claims 14-15 and 17-18 of 18170985 are similarly directed towards a control device. Thus, claims 43-45 and 47-48 of the instant application are rejected in view of claims 14-15 and 17-18 of 18170985 in view of Awad.
Claims 52-54 and 56-60 of the instant application are similar to claims 31-33 and 35-39 of the instant application with the differences amounting to that claims 31-33 and 35-39 are directed towards a method while claims 52-54 and 56-60 are directed towards an apparatus. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-13 of 18170985 are directed towards an apparatus. Thus, claims 43-44 and 47-48 of the instant application are rejected in view of claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-13 of 18170985 in view of Awad.
Claims 34, 46, and 55 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 18170985 (reference application) in view of Awad (US 20230141032 A1) and further in view of Ke (US 20220210850 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are merely in wording or type (apparatus or method) without any substantial differences. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 34, 18170985 in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
18170985 further discloses “wherein stopping, by the first translator, communicating time information with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator comprises: disconnecting, by the first translator … to the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator, wherein … is used by the first translator for receiving or sending a first packet, and the first packet comprises the time information.” ([claim 1]: “stop sending, to a device communicating with the first translator, time synchronized with a clock source in a second network, wherein the device is located in the second network.”)
18170985 does not explicitly disclose “a synchronization tunnel”
However, Ke discloses the missing feature “a synchronization tunnel” ([para 0137-0138]: “The first communications device 270a is associated with first DS-TT 402a which may be integrated with, or directly or indirectly connected to the first communications device 270a, and receives timing information from a GM clock source. The second communications device 270b is associated with second DS-TT 402b which may be integrated with, or directly or indirectly connected to the second communications device 270b, and wishes to receive timing information from a GM clock source, via the wireless communications network.”)
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 18170985, Awad and Ke, to implement the technique as disclosed by 18170985, with a synchronization tunnel as disclosed by Ke. The motivation for doing so is that it increases reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine 18170985 with Awad and Ke to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 46 of the instant application is similar to claims 34 of the instant application with the differences amounting to that claim 34 is directed towards a translator while claim 46 is directed towards a control device controlling an apparatus. Claims 14 of 18170985 is similarly directed towards a control device. Thus, claims 46 of the instant application is rejected in view of claims 14 of 18170985 in view of Awad and Ke.
Claim 55 of the instant application is similar to claims 34 of the instant application with the differences amounting to that claim 34 is directed towards a method while claim 55 is directed towards an apparatus. Thus, claims 55 of the instant application is rejected for similar reasons to claim 34.
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) 31-32, 35-36, 38-39, 41-44, 47-48, 52-53, 56-57, and 59-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20210367693 A1) in view of Awad (US 20230141032 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Kumar discloses:
“A method, comprising: communicating, by a first … in a first network, time information with at least one other … in the first network that is other than the first translator; and” ([para 0046]: “As shown in FIG. 2, and by reference number 205, R2 may receive a clock quality indication of primary reference clock (PRC) from R0 via port P2-1 of R2.”)
“when a time of the first translator in the first network is not synchronized with a clock source in the first network, stopping, by the first translator, communicating time information with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator…” ([para 0046]: “As shown by reference number 210, R2 may determine that R1 is not transmitting a clock (e.g., no clock) at that time or that the clock quality indication transmitted by R1 is a lower priority (e.g., SSU).”)
Kumar does not explicitly disclose the communicators are “translators”, nor “wherein the time information is used for obtaining a time that is synchronized with a clock source in a second network.”
However, Awad discloses the missing feature the communicators are “translators” and “wherein the time information is used for obtaining a time that is synchronized with a clock source in a second network.” ([para 0137-0138]: “The first communications device 270a is associated with first DS-TT 402a which may be integrated with, or directly or indirectly connected to the first communications device 270a, and receives timing information from a GM clock source. The second communications device 270b is associated with second DS-TT 402b which may be integrated with, or directly or indirectly connected to the second communications device 270b, and wishes to receive timing information from a GM clock source, via the wireless communications network.”)
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 Kumar and Awad, to implement the technique as disclosed by Kumar, in the network of Awad. The motivation for doing so is that the network in Awad would similarly benefit from the improvements to performance and reliability as discussed in paragraph 18 of Kumar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kumar with Awad to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 32, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar further discloses “sending, by the first translator, a fault identifier to a configuration device in the first network, wherein the fault identifier indicates that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network.” ([para 0048]: “As shown by reference number 225 and reference number 235, R2 may receive additional clock quality indications from R0 and may determine that the clock quality indications indicate DNU or that the clock of R0 has not recovered from the clock fault (e.g., indicated by the arrows labeled Clock Fault in FIG. 2).”)
Regarding claim 35, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar further discloses “wherein stopping, by the first translator, communicating the time information with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator comprises: stopping, by the first translator, communicating a first packet with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator, wherein the first packet comprises the time information.” ([para 0046]: “As shown by reference number 210, R2 may determine that R1 is not transmitting a clock (e.g., no clock) at that time or that the clock quality indication transmitted by R1 is a lower priority (e.g., SSU).” ; [para 0054]: “The packets may use synchronization status message (SSM) formats that include different TLV fields to indicate a type of TLV format or type of SSM, a length of the TLV, an SSM code (e.g., associated with clock quality indications, such an PRC, SSU, SEC, DNU, and/or the like), and/or one or more unused fields.”)
Regarding claim 36, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar further discloses “receiving, by the first translator, a second packet; and determining, by the first translator based on the second packet, whether the time of the first translator is synchronized with the clock source in the first network.” ([para 0064]: “As shown by reference number 410, the network device may determine whether the clock signal of the selected reference clock is good. For example, the network device may determine whether a quality metric of the clock signal satisfies a threshold (e.g., using a phase-locked loop of the network device). The network device may determine whether the clock signal of the selected reference clock is good in a similar manner as described above with respect to FIGS. 1A-1F.”)
Regarding claim 38, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar further discloses “wherein the second packet carries time information; and wherein determining, by the first translator based on the second packet, whether the time of the first translator is synchronized with the clock source in the first network comprises: when a time deviation that is between the first translator and the clock source in the first network and that is calculated based on the second packet exceeds a second threshold, determining, by the first translator, that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network.” ([para 0023]: “The clock signals may be associated with one or more quality metrics, such as a frequency error rate, a frequency accuracy level, frequency drift, a noise transfer level, a noise generation level, a holdover performance level, and/or the like.”)
Regarding claim 39, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar further discloses “when the first translator does not obtain a second packet within a timeout interval, determining, by the first translator, that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network, wherein the second packet is used by the first translator for performing time synchronization with the clock source in the first network.” ([para 0057]: “In some implementations, a receiving network device may not be configured to detect the fault code in the first type of SSM format. For example, a receiving network device may be a legacy network device that has not been updated, upgraded, enabled to detect the fault code, and/or the like. A legacy network device may experience a failure (e.g., a timeout, a processing error, and/or the like) associated with processing the first type of SSM format with a fault code.”)
Regarding claim 40, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar further discloses “sending, by the first translator, a resume identifier to a configuration device in the first network, wherein the resume identifier indicates that the time of the first translator is resumed to be synchronized with the clock source in the first network, and the resume identifier is used by the configuration device for configuring a port status of a port on each translator in the first network.” ([para 0050]: “As shown by reference number 245, R2 may determine that the clock quality indication transmitted by R0 is DNU, whereas the clock quality indication was originally PRC. As a result, R2 may not select the clock of R0 to be the reference clock of the synchronous network. R2 may determine that the clock of R1 has recovered from the clock fault (e.g., based on an indication received from R1, based on determining that a quality metric of the clock signal received from R1 satisfies the threshold value, and/or the like).”)
Regarding claim 41, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar does not explicitly disclose “wherein the second network is a time sensitive network (TSN).”
However, Awad discloses the missing feature “wherein the second network is a time sensitive network (TSN).” ([para 0061]: “This may be achieved by providing TSN translator (TT) functions at the edges of the 5G system. For example, the UPF 266 which receives the timing information from the packet data network 264 may incorporate TT functionality. Similarly, the communications device 270, which forwards the timing information to applications running on the communications device 270 and/or to other logical or physical entities may have an associated TT function. The TT at the communications device 270 is referred to as a device-side TSN translator (DS-TT), and the TT at the UPF 266 is referred to as a network TSN translator (NW-TT).”)
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 Kumar and Awad, to implement the technique as disclosed by Kumar, in the network of Awad. The motivation for doing so is that the network in Awad would similarly benefit from the improvements to performance and reliability as discussed in paragraph 18 of Kumar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kumar with Awad to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 42, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first network is a fifth generation (5G) network.”
However, Awad discloses the missing feature “wherein the first network is a fifth generation (5G) network.” ([para 0061]: “This may be achieved by providing TSN translator (TT) functions at the edges of the 5G system. For example, the UPF 266 which receives the timing information from the packet data network 264 may incorporate TT functionality. Similarly, the communications device 270, which forwards the timing information to applications running on the communications device 270 and/or to other logical or physical entities may have an associated TT function. The TT at the communications device 270 is referred to as a device-side TSN translator (DS-TT), and the TT at the UPF 266 is referred to as a network TSN translator (NW-TT).”)
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 Kumar and Awad, to implement the technique as disclosed by Kumar, in the network of Awad. The motivation for doing so is that the network in Awad would similarly benefit from the improvements to performance and reliability as discussed in paragraph 18 of Kumar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kumar with Awad to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 43-44 and 47-48 of the instant application are similar to claims 31-32 and 35-36 of the instant application with the differences amounting to that claims 31-32 and 35-36 are directed towards a translator while claims 43-44 and 47-48 are directed towards a control device controlling an apparatus. Such a control device is taught by Kumar in paragraph 92. Thus, claims 43-44 and 47-48 of the instant application are rejected in view of Kumar with Awad for similar reasons to claims 31-32 and 35-36.
Claims 52-53, 56-57, and 59-60 of the instant application are similar to claims 31-32, 35-37, and 39 of the instant application with the differences amounting to that claims 31-32, 35-37, and 39 are directed towards a method while claims 52-53, 56-57, and 59-60 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Kumar in paragraph 82. Thus, claims 43-44 and 47-48 of the instant application are rejected in view of Kumar with Awad for similar reasons to claims 31-32, 35-37, and 39.
Claim(s) 34, 46, and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20210367693 A1) in view of Awad (US 20230141032 A1) and further in view of Ke (US 20220210850 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar further discloses “wherein stopping, by the first translator, communicating time information with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator comprises: disconnecting, by the first translator … to the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator, wherein … is used by the first translator for receiving or sending a first packet, and the first packet comprises the time information.” ([para 0046]: “As shown by reference number 210, R2 may determine that R1 is not transmitting a clock (e.g., no clock) at that time or that the clock quality indication transmitted by R1 is a lower priority (e.g., SSU).”)
Kumar does not explicitly disclose “a synchronization tunnel”
However, Ke discloses the missing feature “a synchronization tunnel” ([para 0137-0138]: “The first communications device 270a is associated with first DS-TT 402a which may be integrated with, or directly or indirectly connected to the first communications device 270a, and receives timing information from a GM clock source. The second communications device 270b is associated with second DS-TT 402b which may be integrated with, or directly or indirectly connected to the second communications device 270b, and wishes to receive timing information from a GM clock source, via the wireless communications network.”)
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 Kumar, Awad and Ke, to implement the technique as disclosed by Kumar, with a synchronization tunnel as disclosed by Ke. The motivation for doing so is that it increases reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kumar with Awad and Ke to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 46 and 55 are rejected over Kumar in view of Awad and Ke for similar reasons to claims 34.
Claim(s) 37 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20210367693 A1) in view of Awad (US 20230141032 A1) and further in view of Reddy (US 20210243797 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Kumar in view of Awad discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kumar further discloses “and wherein determining, by the first translator based on the second packet, whether the time of the first translator is synchronized with the clock source in the first network comprises: when the … is lower than a first threshold, determining, by the first translator, that the time of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network.” ([para 0064]: “As shown by reference number 410, the network device may determine whether the clock signal of the selected reference clock is good. For example, the network device may determine whether a quality metric of the clock signal satisfies a threshold (e.g., using a phase-locked loop of the network device). The network device may determine whether the clock signal of the selected reference clock is good in a similar manner as described above with respect to FIGS. 1A-1F.”)
Kumar does not explicitly disclose “a clock class”
However, Reddy discloses the missing feature “a clock class” ([para 0100]: “At 1102, a change of timing status (e.g., a change in synchronization state, a timing change event, PTP clock class change, phase/frequency threshold change, etc.) may be monitored and detected.”)
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 Kumar, Awad and Reddy, to implement the technique as disclosed by Kumar, with clock class as disclosed by Ke. The motivation for doing so is that it increases system flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kumar with Awad and Reddy to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 58 is rejected over Kumar in view of Awad and Reddy for similar reasons to claims 37.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33, 40, 45, and 54 would be allowable if the associated double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome and if written to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 33, of the closest prior arts Kumar (US 20210367693 A1) in view of Awad (US 20230141032 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim as discussed previously in this action. However, Kumar in view of Awad do not disclose “receiving, by the first translator, a stop command sent by the configuration device based on the fault identifier; and wherein stopping, by the first translator, communicating the time information with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator comprises: stopping, by the first translator according to the stop command, communicating the time information with the at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 33 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 45 and 54 contain similar allowable subject matter to claim 33.
Regarding claim 40, of the closest prior arts Kumar (US 20210367693 A1) in view of Awad (US 20230141032 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim as discussed previously in this action. Kumar further discloses “sending, by the first translator, a resume identifier to a configuration device in the first network, wherein the resume identifier indicates that the time of the first translator is resumed to be synchronized with the clock source in the first network” in paragraph 50. However, Kumar in view of Awad do not disclose “and the resume identifier is used by the configuration device for configuring a port status of a port on each translator in the first network.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 40 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Claims 49-51 would be allowable if the associated double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome.
Regarding claim 49, of the closest prior arts Kumar (US 20210367693 A1) discloses “receiving, by a configuration device, a fault identifier, wherein the fault identifier indicates that a time of a first translator in a first network is not synchronized with a clock source in the first network, or indicates that a time of a control device of the first translator is not synchronized with the clock source in the first network” in paragraph 48. However, Kumar does not disclose “sending, by the configuration device, a stop command based on the fault identifier, wherein the stop command indicates to the first translator to stop communicating time information with at least one other translator in the first network that is other than the first translator, and the time information is used for obtaining a time that is synchronized with a clock source in a second network.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 49 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 50-51 depend on claim 49 and contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Conclusion
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 at (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