DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted January 23, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 19-28 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
The independent claims have been amended to require the determination of “timing resiliency capabilities” to have basis on “information about network nodes of the cellular network that are connected to a time source and that are within the service area for the user equipment” (claim 1, lines 5-8). This limitation is similar to the previous limitation, now stricken, that required a basis on “time synchronization topology information associated with the service area for the user equipment.” The Examiner notes that a change in scope between the two limitations stems from: (a) instead of “time synchronization topology information,” the claim more generally refers to information about the nodes connected to a time source; and (b) instead of [information] being “associated” with the service area, [the nodes] are “within the service area.” The Examiner has carefully reviewed the references, and respectfully maintains that the previously cited prior art teaches these features. For instance, with respect to (a), the time synchronization topology information, as previously indicated, is information about nodes connected to a time source. Further, with respect to (b), the requirement delineating “within” the service area is taught at least via the three methods described in 3GPP_23700 (see, e.g., p. 47; note the variable time source locations).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by the non-patent literature document titled Study On Enhanced Support of Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) in the 5G System (hereinafter “3GPP_23700”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over 3GPP_23700, in view of the non-patent literature document titled Feasibility Study on 5G Timing Resiliency System (hereinafter “3GPP_22878”)1.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 24: 3GPP_23700 teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a control plane entity of a cellular network, from an application function, a request for timing resiliency capabilities for a user equipment (see, e.g., pp. 14, 35-36, 43-44, 46-47; the AF requests capabilities for synchronization);
determining, by the control plane entity, a service area for the user equipment (see, e.g., pp. 46-47, 90; targeted geographic areas or groups are determined);
determining, by the control plane entity, the one or more timing resiliency capabilities for the user equipment based on information about network nodes of the cellular network that are connected to a time source and that are within the service area for the user equipment (see, e.g., pp. 44, 47, 75; time sources associated with identified user plane entities are considered); and
transmitting, by the control plane entity to the application function, a response to the request, the response comprising the one or more timing resiliency capabilities for the user equipment (see, e.g., pp. 14, 35-36, 43-44, 46-47; a response is sent to the AF).
3GPP_23700 does not explicitly state the terms “timing resiliency capabilities,” “time synchronization topology information,” or “service area.” To the extent these features are not inherent to the system of `23700, they are nevertheless taught by 3GPP_22878 (see, e.g., pp. 9-12; note resilience capabilities; pp. 13-14; note synchronization network considerations and service area for reconfiguration). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of 3GPP_22878, such as the timing resilience requirements, signaling, and/or functionality, within the system of 3GPP_23700, in order to enhance efficiency and reliability in time-sensitive networks.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the apparatus and medium of claims 19 and 24, respectively.
Regarding claims 2, 20, and 25: 3GPP_23700 alternatively modified by 3GPP_22878 further teaches wherein the one or more timing resiliency capabilities comprise at least one of: one or more holdover capabilities for the time source, a clock diversity order for the time source, a clock recovery status for the time source, a time distribution performance for the time source, or a synchronization source for the time source (see, e.g., 3GPP_23700 pp. 14-17, 46-51; note time sources for synchronization, distributed configurations, and clock capabilities; see also 3GPP_22878 pp. 10-12; note holdover capabilities, distributed configurations, and/or time sources). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 2 is applicable to the apparatus and medium of claims 20 and 25, respectively.
Regarding claims 3, 21, and 26: 3GPP_23700 alternatively modified by 3GPP_22878 further teaches wherein network nodes that are connected to the time source and that are within the service area for the user equipment include user plane entities and radio access network nodes of the cellular network (see, e.g., 3GPP_23700 pp. 16, 37-38, 44, 47, 75; time sources associated with identified user plane entities are considered). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the apparatus and medium of claims 21 and 26, respectively.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 22, 23, 27, and 28: 3GPP_23700 alternatively modified by 3GPP_22878 further teaches performing, by the control plane entity, the reconfiguration of the cellular network for timing resiliency (i.e. claim 5); and performing, by the control plane entity, reconfiguration of at least one of: user plane forwarding; time distribution signaling; event monitoring; or reporting of user plane entities of the cellular network (i.e. claim 6) (see, e.g., 3GPP_23700 pp. 35-39; note reconfiguration functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claims 5 and 6.
The rationale set forth above regarding the methods of claims 5 and 6 is applicable to the apparatuses and mediums of claims 22, 23, 27, and 28, respectively.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 Applicant’s presumption is correct with respect to the typographical error in the previous Office action (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 6). Whereas the body of the rejection set forth 3GPP_23700 alternatively modified by 3GPP_22878, the introductory paragraph mistakenly identified Ko and Liu.