DETAILED ACTION
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file: Amendment date 07/08/2026.
Claims 1-7 and 15-27 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 15-27 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-7 and 15-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm (US 2024/0048261 A1) in view of Nekoui et al. (US 2023/0152471 A1) and further in view Nuttall et al. (US 2023/0299845 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bohm teaches a method of managing time information in a networked device, comprising:
obtaining a first timestamp from a first time-source; obtaining a second timestamp from a second time-source (receives remote GPS clock corresponding first time-source and local clock corresponding to second time-source “Monitoring of the other GPS clocks is typically done by using a time transfer protocol, such as IEEE 1588, with a session to each of the GPS clocks being monitored and compare the clock to each other and to the local clock” see Bohm: ¶[0070]; Fig.7-8) ;
selecting either the first time-source or the second time-source (compare the remote clocks and local GPS clock see Bohm: ¶[0070]; Fig.8), wherein the selecting comprises:
determining whether the first timestamp and the second timestamp are within a threshold difference of one another (determining whether remotes clock and local clock within a tolerance “If the system is in normal operation, all remote clocks and the local clock shall be within a tolerance, such as for example 100 ns, if that is the time tolerance of the systems operation” see Bohm: ¶[0070]);
setting an onboard clock of the networked device based at least in part on the selected time-source (remote clock and local clocks are adjust to depends on the comparison “Which remote clock that the local clock of the receiving node will adjust to depends on the comparison between the remote clocks of the remote nodes, identifying a group of accurate clocks” see Bohm: ¶[0070]; Fig.8 steps S5A-S5B2); and
utilizing the onboard clock to perform a data transmission (performing adjusting clock for packet transmission see Bohm: Fig.1; ¶[0070]).
Bohm does not explicitly teaches first time-source having a first expected latency and a second time-source having a second expected latency, wherein the second expected latency is less than the first expected latency.
However, Nekoui teaches the first time-source having a first expected latency and a second time-source having a second expected latency (HV 802 receiving first and second instance from network device 804 and timestamp information from a navigation device 806 to compensate for standard or expected delays see Nekoui: ¶[0079]; Fig.8 steps 808-820), wherein the second expected latency is less than the first expected latency (second instance time don’t have any delay which is less than first time instance 703 include propagation delay (see Fig.7) and determine the navigation system time and network time difference timestamps between based on timestamp information (corresponding to latency) “at block 816, HV 802 can determine a time difference for timestamps provided by navigation device 806 at the first instance (e.g., navigation timestamp 808) and the second instance (e.g., navigation timestamp 812)” see Nekoui: ¶[0076]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0103]; Fig.7) in order to enhance detecting and correcting time errors and location measurement errors (see Nekoui: ¶[0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Bohm to include (or to use, etc.) the first time-source having a first expected latency and a second time-source having a second expected latency, wherein the second expected latency is less than the first expected latency as taught by Nekoui in order to enhance detecting and correcting time errors and location measurement errors (see Nekoui: ¶[0001]).
The Bohm does not explicitly teaches responsive to the first timestamp and the second timestamp not being within the threshold difference, selecting the first time-source; and response to the first timestamp and the second timestamp being within the threshold difference, selecting the second time-source.
However, Nuttall teaches the responsive to the first timestamp and the second timestamp not being within the threshold difference, selecting the first time-source; and response to the first timestamp and the second timestamp being within the threshold difference, selecting the second time-source (selection satellite network or terrestrial network based on network condition, where the network condition include the rule set 246 “a selection of the satellite network or the terrestrial network based on network conditions. For an embodiment, this includes determining if an error rate is above a desired threshold, a latency is greater than a desired threshold, and/or a capacity is less than a desired threshold for either the satellite network or the terrestrial network, and selecting the satellite network or the terrestrial network in order to satisfy one or more of the desired thresholds” see Nuttall: Fig.7; ¶0037]; Fig.9; ¶[0043]; ¶0063]) in order to enhance hub communication with a satellite network or a terrestrial network (see Nuttall: ¶[0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of the modified Bohm to include (or to use, etc.) the responsive to the first timestamp and the second timestamp not being within the threshold difference, selecting the first time-source; and response to the first timestamp and the second timestamp being within the threshold difference, selecting the second time-source as taught by Nuttall in order to enhance hub communication with a satellite network or a terrestrial network (see Nuttall: ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Bohm taught the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Bohm further teaches wherein: the first time-source is a narrow band internet of things (NB-IoT) network; and the second time-source is a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) (IOT application in 5G technologies and GNSS network see Bohm: ¶[0033]; ¶[0059]) .
Regarding claim 3, the modified Bohm taught the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Bohm further teaches wherein: the first time-source is a narrow band internet of things (NB-IoT) network; and the second time-source is a cellular network (IOT application in 5G technologies and 4G network see Bohm: ¶[0033]; ¶[0055]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Bohm taught the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Bohm further teaches additionally comprising: comparing the onboard clock to time-data of a global navigation satellite system (GNSS); determining that a timestamp of the GNSS is within a second threshold value of time-data of the onboard clock for a period over a third threshold value duration (tolerance range/level are configured by the application, which can be range from 20 ns-100ns see Bohm: ¶[0038]); and setting, responsive to a positive determination, the onboard clock using the GNSS (setting clock time based on compared of tolerance ranges/levels see Bohm: ¶[0070]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Bohm taught the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Bohm further teaches additionally comprising: comparing the onboard clock to time-data of a global navigation satellite system (GNSS); determining that the time-data of the GNSS differs by more than the threshold difference from time-data of the onboard clock; and resetting the onboard clock using time-data from a cellular system (compare with local clock and use remote clock when fall out of the tolerance range and determined again until new assessment of local clock within range “if the receiving node determines that its local clock fall outside of the tolerance range, it will lower its priority and determine to use a remote clock as a temporary master for its local clock, i.e. it will slave on the remote clock until the local clock is determined as accurate again, i.e. until a new assessment of the local clock determines that it is within the tolerance range” see Bohm: ¶[0070-0071]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Bohm taught the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Bohm further teaches additionally comprising: comparing the onboard clock to time-data of a global navigation satellite system (GNSS); determining that time-data of the GNSS differs by more than a second threshold value from time-data of the onboard clock; and the onboard clock using time-data from a narrow band internet of things (NB-IoT) network (compare local clock with remote clocks and adjusting clock based on comparison whether tolerance range/levels “in this case the local station will compare its clock to the other clocks, determine if it is accurate or not, and act upon said determination accordingly. If the local clock is detected as falling outside of the tolerance, the station shall then lower the priority of its GPS clock to select a remote clock, using for example IEEE PTP” see Bohm: ¶[0070-0071]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Bohm taught the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Bohm further teaches additionally comprising: determining that a cellular time-source is invalid; determining that a GNSS time-source is invalid; and resetting the onboard clock using time-data from an NB-IoT network (determine local GPS clock falls out of a tolerance range (corresponding be invalid) in comparison of other GSP clocks and The selection of which remote clock to use may be local, or the local station may be instructed to lower (or increase) the priority and the IEEE 1588 will perform the selection see Bohm: ¶[0071]).
Regarding claims 15-20, they are rejected for the same reason as method of claims 1-2 and 4-6 as described hereinabove. Regarding claims 15-20, they are discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that perform the same functionalities as method of claims 1-2 and 4-6 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claims 21-27, they are rejected for the same reason as method of claims 1-7 as described hereinabove. Regarding claims 21-27, they are discloses a device that perform the same functionalities as method of claims 1-7 as described hereinabove.
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 GUANG W LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7AM-5PMET.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
August 8, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights