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 .
Response to Amendment
The communication is in response to the amendment filed 11/26/2025. The amendment has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim US 2012/0264371.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13, Kim teaches a method system and a time synchronization apparatus (Figures 2 and 3), comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:
an acquisition process of acquiring pieces of time information of at least two time synchronization schemes among a plurality of time synchronization schemes (a station collects time synchronization information including reliability information; Paragraph 38. The information receives is from GPS/GNSS signaling from multiple base stations (i.e. plurality of schemes); Paragraph 37 and Figure 5 step s500);
an extraction process of extracting reliability of each of the pieces of time information (reliability information is extracted from the signals; Paragraph 38);
a time synchronization process of carrying out time synchronization by deciding synchronization time information based on the reliability of each of the pieces of time information (based on reliability information, the synchronization is determined; Paragraph 38); and
carrying out calculations while weighting the pieces of time information of at the at least two time synchronization schemes based on the reliability of each of the pieces of information and carry out time synchronization based on a result of the calculation (based on the reliability information collected from a plurality of base stations, the time synchronization is carried out using the information that has the reliability value greater than a threshold; Figure 5 paragraphs 40-41. As there is a threshold being compared to, this is viewed as the calculation. Thus the calculation is the weighting of the reliability information (with respect to the pieces of time information), comparing this to a threshold, and the reliability information (and associated time information) with the values greater than a threshold are what is used to carry out the time synchronization).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, Kim teaches selecting, based on the reliability of each of the time information, time information of one of the at least two time synchronization schemes and carry out time synchronization while using, as the synchronization time information, the time information that was selected (based on the reliability information collected from a plurality of base stations, the time synchronization is carried out using the information that has the reliability value greater than a threshold; Figure 5 paragraphs 40-41).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, Kim teaches one of at least two of the schemes is network listening and in the extraction process, extracting the reliability of each of the pieces of time information in accordance with reception strength of a radio signal from a base station (the extracted information, which is used to determine the reliability, includes SNR (i.e. reception strength) of signals; Paragraph 35. The information received is with respect to GNS/GPS signals (i.e. network listening); Paragraphs 35 and 38).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Kim teaches one of the time synchronization schemes is GNSS and in the extraction process, the reliability of each of the time information is extracted in accordance with the number of satellites for which the reception strength is not less than a predetermined value (Paragraph 38 teaches GNSS. The reliability information extracted for each satellite signal associated with each base station is greater than a threshold (i.e. predetermined value); Paragraph 41).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sachs et al. “Sachs” US 2020/0259896.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, Kim teaches the extraction of reliability information with respect to signals received in a network (GPS and GNSS for instance); however, Kim does not disclose PTP or that the information is related to a traffic volume and an amount of delay in the network. Sachs teaches requirements in communication system with respect to reliability include latency and throughput (volume); Paragraphs 2 and 674. Paragraphs 1072-1073 disclose reliability with respect to throughput. The base stations sends signaling to the UE with reliability and latency (delay) attributes); Paragraph 1503. Paragraph 1497 teaches the use of IEEE 1588 (PTP). Thus one can see the reliability is associated with volume and latency/delay of traffic.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Kim to include the reliability information is associated with volume and delay as taught by Sachs.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can improve reliability in the system as taught by Sachs; Paragraphs 1072 and 1074.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach or suggest the amended limitations (previous claim 3) because Kim merely teaches comparing reliability values against a threshold and when the value is greater than the threshold, selecting first time synch information associated with the reliability value. Applicant states this does not read on the claims calculation of a weighting the time sync based on reliability values and using a result of the weighting calculation for time synch.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, the Examiner notes there is no definition to the “weighting” limitation of the claims. In other words, there is no definition to specify what the weight of the reliability information is or what the weight has to do with the outcome of any calculation. Since Kim is using the reliability information and comparing it to something else, this is viewed as weighting. The Examiner suggests amending in the formula 4 of the instant specification which defines the weights and how they are used to compute the synchronization time information. This would help overcome the rejection.
As shown in the rejection and reiterated here, Figure 5 step S500 teaches the collection of time synchronization information from each base station which includes reliability information (i.e. at least two time synch); Paragraphs 38 and 40). The system receives this information and takes the reliability value (i.e. determined from the received information which can be viewed as a calculation of weighting the reliability information) and compares it to a threshold. Comparing two values and making a decision based on the comparison is a calculation. Further, as the reliability information would have a value associated with it (determined by the collected time information) this value, which is then compared the threshold, is viewed as a calculated weight.; Paragraphs 40-41. Based on the comparison as step S510, the system performs a time synchronization S520 (a/b). This is equivalent to the carrying out synchronization using a result of the calculation (i.e. comparison to a threshold).
Based on the broad claim limitation, the rejection is proper because there is no definition to what the weight is, how the weight is actually calculated, or how the weight impacts the time synchronization being carried out. As noted earlier, the examiner suggests including the formula which better defines the weight, the calculation steps and how it impacts the time synchronization information.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411