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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 15-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11848722. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed patent discloses the limitation of claim 1 of application such as receiving a synchronizing signal and determining a time to next cycle based on received synchronizing signal and scheduling the next cycle excepting some elements being omitted such as NEXT interference and opening receive window in order to broaden the claims. Therefore, the applicant is attempting to broaden the parent application's claims by eliminating some of the claim elements in the continuation at issue here. If allowed, the application at bar would unjustly extend applicant patent protection beyond the statutory period of the patent while, at the same time, granting broader protection to the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] in view of Wong [US 2010/0111113].
As claims 1 and 18, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses a method comprising: receiving a synchronization signal from a reference master node of a network [Par. 0113 discloses a sync is received from grandmaster at a node, Fig 9, S21]; determining a time to a next cycle based on based on the synchronization signal, includes the clock frequency of the reference master node, from the reference master node of the network [Par. 0113 discloses determining a time to start of next communication cycle based on receiving sync signal from grandmaster at a node wherein the sync signal includes the clock frequency of the grandmaster to be used for timing, Par. 0090]; and scheduling, based on the synchronization signal, the next cycle for a communication [Par. 0113 discloses scheduling next communication cycle based on the determined time based on received sync from grandmaster at a node]. However, Sakaue fails to disclose the synchronization signal indicating a clock frequency of the reference master. In the same field of endeavor, Wong [US 2010/0111113]. discloses the synchronization signal indicating a clock frequency of the reference master [Par. 0072].
Since a method and system for indicating clock frequency of master node in the sync message for using to synchronizing with another clock is well known and expected in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for indicating the clock frequency of the master node in the sync message as disclosed by Wong [US 2010/0111113] into the teaching of Sakaue. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claims 2 and 20, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the synchronization signal from the reference master node of the network includes information relating to an internal clock of the reference master node [Fig 3-4 discloses internal system clock for using as time grandmaster, Par. 0008].
As claim 3, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the information relating to the internal clock of the reference master node is relative to a time at which the synchronization signal was generated at the reference master node [Par. 0113 discloses time of sync signal is related to grandmaster time].
As claim 4, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the information relating to the internal clock of the reference master node is relative to a time at which the synchronization signal was transmitted by reference master node [Par. 0113 discloses time of sync signal is related to grandmaster time, 1:00 is transmission time].
As claim 5, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the time to the next cycle is determined in view of the information relating to the internal clock of the reference master node [Par. 0113 discloses time to starting of next cycle based on time of grandmaster].
As claim 6, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the synchronization signal from the reference master node of the first network includes a value related to an internal clock of the reference master node that relates to a time when the next cycle of the first network is expected to start [Par. 0113 discloses time to starting of next cycle based on time of grandmaster, 1:00 and start time is 1:30].
As claim 8, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses determining a clock deviation for a neighbor node using the synchronization signal [Par. 0069 discloses a time different between grandmaster and local time].
As claim 9, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the clock deviation for a neighbor node is determined using the synchronization signal and an internal clock of the neighbor node when the synchronization signal is received from the reference master node [Par. 0069 discloses a time different between grandmaster and local time]..
As claims 15 and 19, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the time to the next cycle is determined based on a local clock frequency of a neighbor node [Par. 0090 and 0113].
As claim 16, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the time to the next cycle is determined based on a clock deviation of a neighbor node [Par. 0069 and 0079 discloses the local clock can be advanced or retarded “acceleration or deceleration”].
As claim 17, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses determining the time to the next cycle includes determining a value for a local clock for a neighbor node [Par. 0069 and 0079 discloses the local clock can be advanced or retarded “acceleration or deceleration”].
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker [US 7065779] in view of Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] and Svevar [US 2017/0026446].
As claims 1 and 18, Crocker discloses a method comprising: receiving a synchronization signal from a reference master node of a first network [Fig. 3, Ref 350 send sync signal to Ref 306]. However, Crocker fails to disclose determining a time to a next cycle based on based on the synchronization signal from the reference master node of the first network; and scheduling, based on the synchronization signal, the next cycle for a communication. In the same field of endeavor, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] determining a time to a next cycle based on based on the synchronization signal, includes the clock frequency of the reference master node, from the reference master node of the network [Par. 0113 discloses determining a time to start of next communication cycle based on receiving sync signal from grandmaster at a node]; and scheduling, based on the synchronization signal, the next cycle for a communication [Par. 0113 discloses scheduling next communication cycle based on the determined time based on received sync from grandmaster at a node by setting a time for starting a nex communication cycle]. However, Crocker and Sakaue fail to disclose the synchronization signal indicating a clock frequency of the reference master. In the same field of endeavor, Svevar [US 2017/0026446] discloses the synchronization signal indicating a clock frequency of the reference master [Par. 0040, 0045, 0058 discloses time-stamp indicating a clock frequency of clock of transmitter to receiver node].
Since a method and system for indicating clock frequency of master node in the sync message for using to synchronizing with another clock is well known and expected in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for indicating the clock frequency of the master node in the sync message as disclosed by Svevar into the teaching of Sakaue which discloses a method and system for determining a time to start a communication cycle into the teaching of Crocker. The motivation would have been to reduce communication error..
As claims 2 and 20, Crocker discloses the synchronization signal from the reference master node of the first network includes information relating to an internal clock of the reference master node [Fig 3 discloses current timestamp of master is relative to internal time reference of MAC, Col. 9:5-27].
As claim 3, Crocker discloses the information relating to the internal clock of the reference master node is relative to a time at which the synchronization signal was generated at the reference master node [Fig 3 discloses current timestamp of master is relative to internal time reference of MAC, Col. 9:5-27].
As claim 4, Crocker discloses the information relating to the internal clock of the reference master node is relative to a time at which the synchronization signal was transmitted by reference master node [Fig 3 discloses current timestamp of master is relative to internal time reference of MAC, Col. 9:5-27].
As claim 5, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the time to the next cycle is determined in view of the information relating to the internal clock of the reference master node [Par. 0113 discloses time to starting of next cycle based on time of grandmaster].
As claim 6, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the synchronization signal from the reference master node of the first network includes a value related to an internal clock of the reference master node that relates to a time when the next cycle of the first network is expected to start [Par. 0113 discloses time to starting of next cycle based on time of grandmaster, 1:00 and start time is 1:30].
As claim 8, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses determining a clock deviation for a neighbor node using the synchronization signal [Par. 0069 discloses a time different between grandmaster and local time].
As claim 9, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the clock deviation for a neighbor node is determined using the synchronization signal and an internal clock of the neighbor node when the synchronization signal is received from the reference master node [Par. 0069 discloses a time different between grandmaster and local time]..
As claims 15 and 19, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the time to the next cycle is determined based on a local clock frequency of a neighbor node [Par. 0090 and 0113].
As claim 16, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses the time to the next cycle is determined based on a clock deviation of a neighbor node [Par. 0069 and 0079 discloses the local clock can be advanced or retarded “acceleration or deceleration”].
As claim 17, Sakaue [US 2021/0152322] discloses determining the time to the next cycle includes determining a value for a local clock for a neighbor node [Par. 0069 and 0079 discloses the local clock can be advanced or retarded “acceleration or deceleration”].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bingham [US 5680394] discloses system clock for synchronizing with local transceiver clock.
In [US 2012/0044827] discloses synchronizing the scheduling of nodes.
Zadicaro [US 8301760] discloses a method and system for synchronizing the scheduling of nodes.
Moreno [US 2018/0138943] discloses a method and system for synchronizing the scheduling of nodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414