DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are pending in this application and claims 8-14 are withdrawn without traverse (see Remark: 03/19/2026).
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 10/03/2024 and 04/30/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 9-13, recite multiple of “if” which infers a conditional statement, thus, rendering the claim indefinite. Similar problem exist in claim 15 lines 10-16. Since dependent claims 2-7 and 16-20 depend on corresponding independent claim 1 or 15, they are rejected for the same reason as described hereinabove.
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 15-20 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).
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 if 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]);
selecting the first time-source if the first timestamp and the second timestamp are not within the threshold difference (selecting remote clock when falling outside of the tolerance “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. Thus” see Bohm: ¶[0070-0071]); and
selecting the second time-source if the first timestamp and the second timestamp are within the threshold difference (selecting local clock when normal operation “In that case, all stations shall have set their local GPS clock at highest priority meaning that all stations use their local clock” 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 ***Ref A*** 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]).
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 value 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 a NB-IoT (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.
Conclusion
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 on 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
April 3, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights