Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/421,467

Method and Apparatus to Request and Grant Timing and Synchronisation Services on Demand

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 24, 2024
Examiner
FIGUEROA, MARISOL
Art Unit
2643
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Cisco Technology Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
566 granted / 712 resolved
+17.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
738
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
9.5%
-30.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 712 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. 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 1, 6-8, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALI et al. (US 2007/0058812) in view of STICKLE et al. (US 9,853,949). Regarding claim 1, Ali discloses a method for establishing timing and synchronization services comprising: sending, by a local device, a request to a first source of timing and synchronization services and a second source of timing and synchronization services (abstract; the device establishes a secure communications channel to one or more network attached time sources (i.e., first source and second source) and inquires each of the network attached time sources as to the current time using the secure communication channel), wherein the local device is connected to the first source and the second source (abstract; the device establishes a secure communications channel to one or more network attached time sources); receiving, by the local device, a first offer for timing and synchronization services from the first source and a second offer for timing and synchronization services from the second source (abstract; the device receives the current time (i.e., offers) from the network-attaches time sources). But, Ali does not particularly disclose comparing, by the local device, the first offer and the second offer to predetermined metrics; requesting, by the local device, that the first source provide the timing and synchronization services; and receiving, by the local device, the timing and synchronization services from the first source. However, Stickle teaches comparing, by the local device, the first offer and the second offer to predetermined metrics (col. 13, lines 36-42; if multiple time servers (i.e., time sources) are available, the endpoint may select a particularly time server based on various factors such as workload, cost/pricing considerations, etc.); requesting, by the local device, that the first source provide the timing and synchronization services (col. 13, lines 44-48; the endpoint transmit an internal timestamp request to the selected time server (i.e., first source)); and receiving, by the local device, the timing and synchronization services from the first source (col. 13, lines 55-65; the endpoint receives an encrypted timestamp from the time server).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ali with the teachings of Stickle, since such a modification would allow to select a particular time server (i.e., timer and synchronization source) that is the most appropriate to handle the service request. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ali and Stickle disclose the method of claim 1, Stickle discloses wherein the predetermined metrics comprise price and quality-of-service requirements (col. 13, lines 36-42; if multiple time servers (i.e., time sources) are available, the endpoint may select a particularly time server based on various factors such as workload, cost/pricing considerations, and/or latency measured). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ali with the teachings of Stickle, since such a modification would allow to select a particular time server (i.e., timer and synchronization source) that is the most appropriate to handle the service request. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ali and Stickle disclose the method of claim 1, Ali discloses wherein the local device is connected to the first source and the second source via wired or optical connections (p. [0030]). Regarding claim 8, Ali discloses a local device connected to one or more 5G base stations, the local device comprising, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the one or more processors that stores instructions operable when executed by the one or more processors (p. [0037]) to cause the local device to perform a method for establishing timing and synchronization services comprising: sending, by a local device, a request to a first source of timing and synchronization services and a second source of timing and synchronization services (abstract; the device establishes a secure communications channel to one or more network attached time sources (i.e., first source and second source) and inquires each of the network attached time sources as to the current time using the secure communication channel), wherein the local device is connected to the first source and the second source (abstract; the device establishes a secure communications channel to one or more network attached time sources); receiving, by the local device, a first offer for timing and synchronization services from the first source and a second offer for timing and synchronization services from the second source (abstract; the device receives the current time (i.e., offers) from the network-attaches time sources). But, Ali does not particularly disclose comparing, by the local device, the first offer and the second offer to predetermined metrics; requesting, by the local device, that the first source provide the timing and synchronization services; and receiving, by the local device, the timing and synchronization services from the first source. However, Stickle teaches comparing, by the local device, the first offer and the second offer to predetermined metrics (col. 13, lines 36-42; if multiple time servers (i.e., time sources) are available, the endpoint may select a particularly time server based on various factors such as workload, cost/pricing considerations, etc.); requesting, by the local device, that the first source provide the timing and synchronization services (col. 13, lines 44-48; the endpoint transmit an internal timestamp request to the selected time server (i.e., first source)); and receiving, by the local device, the timing and synchronization services from the first source (col. 13, lines 55-65; the endpoint receives an encrypted timestamp from the time server).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ali with the teachings of Stickle, since such a modification would allow to select a particular time server (i.e., timer and synchronization source) that is the most appropriate to handle the service request. Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ali and Stickle disclose the local device of claim 8, Ali discloses wherein the local device is connected to the first source and the second source via wired or optical connections (p. [0030]). Regarding claim 15, Ali discloses one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying instructions that, when executed by a processor (p. [0037]), cause the processor to perform operations comprising: sending, by a local device, a request to a first source of timing and synchronization services and a second source of timing and synchronization services (abstract; the device establishes a secure communications channel to one or more network attached time sources (i.e., first source and second source) and inquires each of the network attached time sources as to the current time using the secure communication channel), wherein the local device is connected to the first source and the second source (abstract; the device establishes a secure communications channel to one or more network attached time sources); receiving, by the local device, a first offer for timing and synchronization services from the first source and a second offer for timing and synchronization services from the second source (abstract; the device receives the current time (i.e., offers) from the network-attaches time sources). But, Ali does not particularly disclose comparing, by the local device, the first offer and the second offer to predetermined metrics; requesting, by the local device, that the first source provide the timing and synchronization services; and receiving, by the local device, the timing and synchronization services from the first source. However, Stickle teaches comparing, by the local device, the first offer and the second offer to predetermined metrics (col. 13, lines 36-42; if multiple time servers (i.e., time sources) are available, the endpoint may select a particularly time server based on various factors such as workload, cost/pricing considerations, etc.); requesting, by the local device, that the first source provide the timing and synchronization services (col. 13, lines 44-48; the endpoint transmit an internal timestamp request to the selected time server (i.e., first source)); and receiving, by the local device, the timing and synchronization services from the first source (col. 13, lines 55-65; the endpoint receives an encrypted timestamp from the time server).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ali with the teachings of Stickle, since such a modification would allow to select a particular time server (i.e., timer and synchronization source) that is the most appropriate to handle the service request. Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ali and Stickle disclose the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 15, Stickle discloses wherein the predetermined metrics comprise price and quality-of-service requirements (col. 13, lines 36-42; if multiple time servers (i.e., time sources) are available, the endpoint may select a particularly time server based on various factors such as workload, cost/pricing considerations, and/or latency measured). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ali with the teachings of Stickle, since such a modification would allow to select a particular time server (i.e., timer and synchronization source) that is the most appropriate to handle the service request. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALI et al. (US in views of STICKLE et al., and SANTUKA et al. (US 2016/0277262). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ali and Stickle disclose the local device of claim 8, but does not particularly disclose wherein the local device comprises a router or switch. However, Santuka teaches wherein the local device comprises a router or switch (p. [0015]; the network may include network devices such as routers, switches, controllers etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Ali and Stickle with the teachings of Santuka, since these are well-known example of local devices that are conventionally found in local networks. Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ali and Stickle disclose the local device of claim 8, but does not particularly disclose wherein the local device comprises a wireless controller. However, Santuka teaches wherein the local device comprises a wireless controller (p. [0015]; the network may include network devices such as routers, switches, controllers etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Ali and Stickle with the teachings of Santuka, since these are well-known example of local devices that are conventionally found in local networks. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-5, 11-13, and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm. 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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. /MARISOL FIGUEROA/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603022
CONNECTING ASSEMBLY AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593366
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588031
DOWNLINK CONTROL SIGNALING FOR MULTICAST AND UNICAST COMMUNICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581000
MOBILE TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12549980
Data Processing Method and Apparatus, and System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+1.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 712 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month