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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (US 2022/0269223).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Xu teaches a system and method comprising: a non-transitory memory including instructions stored thereon ([0038]-[0039]); and a processor ([0038]) operably coupled to the non-transitory memory being configured to execute the instructions including: collecting, via a first node (abstract: “master station”), a characteristic ([0015]: “calculating a clock error evaluation”) of a first clock (master clock) disposed therein; collecting, via a second node (abstract: “slave station”), a characteristic ([0020]: “returning a feedback”) of a second clock (slave station) disposed therein; receiving, via the first node, an instance of time of the first clock ([0024]); receiving, via the second node, an instance of time of the second clock ([0022]: “the system of the slave station”); causing to determine, via a model based on the collected characteristic and the received instance of time from each of the first and second nodes, a time offset and/or frequency offset between the first and second clocks ([0025]: “calculating the time difference according to the system time of the master station…and the system time of the slave station”); and transmitting, to the second node, an indication of the determined time offset and/or frequency offset output from the model ([0011]: “transmitting the time information to the slave station”), wherein the first or second clock includes a crystal oscillator ([0015]).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Xu teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 13, further comprising: the processor being configured to execute instructions of transmitting, to the second node, an indication of the determined time offset and/or frequency offset output from the model ([0011]: “transmitting the time information to the slave station”); and receiving, from the second node, feedback that an output of the second node has been updated in view of the transmission. After the second clock is corrected ([0035]) and its output of the time is updated, the method inherently receives feedback because the second clock’s time will have changed.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Xu teaches the method of claim 1 of system of claim 13, further comprising the processor executing instructions of: evaluating whether the time offset falls outside of acceptable synchronization bounds ([0026]); and causing to reset the first and second clocks to substantially match one another based upon the evaluation. Paragraphs [0027]-[0028] and [0074] teach that the first and second clocks will not be corrected and set to match one another until the clocks are in an acceptable synchronization bound (the steady state).
Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first clock or the second clock includes any one or more of a crystal oscillator, a chip scale atomic clock, or an atomic clock including rubidium gas cells, cesium beams or hydrogen masers ([0015]).
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Xu in view of Johnson (US 6,324,586).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Xu discloses the method of claim 2 and system of claim 13.
Xu does not show the feedback indicating synchronization of less than or equal to 1 microsecond between the first and second clocks.
Johnson teaches synchronization between clocks being to the level of a nanosecond, which is less than 1 microsecond (column 4, line 67 to column 5, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have synchronized Xu’s master and slave clocks to the level of a nanosecond, as suggested by Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a highly precise network of clocks.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Xu discloses the method of claim 2 and system of claim 14, wherein the update includes a correction to a time of the second clock ([0035]).
Xu does not explicitly show the update correcting a published timestamp of the second clock.
Clocks comprise displays for publishing timestamps.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have displayed the corrected time of Xu’s second clock, so that the update publishes corrected timestamps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a clock that displays accurate information.
Claims 7-8, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Maki (US 2016/0149610).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 18-19, Xu discloses the method of claim 1 and system of claim 13, but does not show the characteristic including an environmental condition that is temperature.
Maki teaches a method comprising collecting a characteristic that is a temperature ([0088]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the characteristic of Xu for the characteristic of Maki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of compensating for frequency changes due to temperature fluctuations ([0088] of Maki).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Xu discloses the method of claim 1 and system of claim 13.
Xu does not show the determination including a frequency offset wherein the frequency offset includes an environmental influence.
Maki teaches a determination including a frequency offset that is an environmental influence ([0088]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Maki’s frequency offset with Xu’s determination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to increase the clocks’ accuracy by compensating for frequency offsets.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Greer (US 5,697,082).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses the method of claim 1.
Xu does not show the model including a Kalman filter.
Greer teaches a Kalman filter for calibrating a clock (abstract and column 2, lines 47-49).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Greer’s Kalman filter with Xu’s model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because a Kalman filter would improve estimates of frequency errors and compensate for age-related frequency deviation (Greer, column 2, lines 49-58).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Wikipedia (MachineLearning.pdf).
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, but does not show the model being a machine learning model.
Wikipedia teaches a machine learning model (MachineLearning.pdf).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Xu’s model for Wikipedia’s model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known model for predictably determining time and/or frequency offsets.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholls (US 6,711,230).
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses the method of claim 1.
Xu does not show noise detected via the model being based upon environmental relative frequency covariance.
Nicholls teaches noise detected via a model being based upon environmental relative frequency covariance (column 10, lines 43-47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-11-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Xu does not disclose collecting characteristics” because “calculating a clock error evaluation period is separate and distinct from collecting a characteristic of a first clock via a first node and collecting a characteristic of a second clock via a second node.” The claims and specification do not provide a special technical definition of “characteristic,” so the broadest, reasonable interpretation (BRI) applies. Under BRI, a clock’s clock error and feedback are characteristics.
Applicant argues that Xu does not disclose “causing to determine a time offset and/or frequency offset via a model” because Xu’s calculated transmission path delay, round-trip timing, master station system time, subservient station time, and Allan variance calculation are “not part of a model for purposes of determining time/frequency offsets based upon collected clock characteristics.” Transmission path delay, round-trip timing, master station system time, subservient station time, and Allan variance are all clock characteristics under BRI. Moreover, a path delay and variance are time offsets under BRI, and Xu uses these characteristics in a calculation—that calculation may be considered a model.
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 Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009.
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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2833
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2833