Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/583,234

INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 21, 2024
Examiner
SOLINSKY, PETER G
Art Unit
2463
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
611 granted / 685 resolved
+31.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
708
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§112
6.2%
-33.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 685 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 13, 15, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fan, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0016860. Fan teaches: [Claim 1] An information processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry: to predict as a prediction parameter value, a future parameter value of each of a plurality of types of time synchronization parameters each of which is used for time synchronization calculation which is calculation for synchronizing times of two devices (obtain a first timestamp difference where the first timestamp difference is a difference between a sending timestamp and a receiving timestamp, [0006]); when a measured parameter value which is a measured value corresponding to the prediction parameter value is generated with elapse of time, to calculate as a prediction error, a difference between the measured parameter value and the prediction parameter value, for each of the time synchronization parameters (obtaining a delay prediction value of the target link, [0006]); to calculate an abnormality degree indicating possibility that an abnormality is included in the measured parameter value, using the prediction error, for each of the time synchronization parameters (the second timestamp difference is compensated for based on the timestamp difference and time synchronization is performed based on these values, [0006]); and to present the plurality of types of time synchronization parameters in descending order of the abnormality degree (multiple delay prediction values are computed, [0020], the order of presentation is mainly a design choice and not given much patentable weight). [Claim 5] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is connected to the two devices through a network (see Fig. 1), and each of the time synchronization parameters is either a time in a selection device which is one device selected from the two devices, a propagation delay between the selection device and the information processing apparatus, a clock ratio between the selection device and the information processing apparatus, or a retention time of a communication frame in the selection device (obtain a first timestamp difference where the first timestamp difference is a difference between a sending timestamp and a receiving timestamp, [0006]). [Claim 7] An information processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry: to predict as a prediction parameter value, a future parameter value of each of a plurality of types of time synchronization parameters each of which is used for time synchronization calculation which is calculation for synchronizing times of two devices (obtain a first timestamp difference where the first timestamp difference is a difference between a sending timestamp and a receiving timestamp, [0006]); when a measured parameter value which is a measured value corresponding to the prediction parameter value is generated with elapse of time, to calculate as a prediction error, a difference between the measured parameter value and the prediction parameter value, for each of the time synchronization parameters (obtaining a delay prediction value of the target link, [0006], Fan); to calculate an abnormality degree indicating possibility that an abnormality is included in the measured parameter value, using the prediction error, for each of the time synchronization parameters (the second timestamp difference is compensated for based on the timestamp difference and time synchronization is performed based on these values, [0006]); and to specify a time synchronization parameter having the maximum abnormality degree as an abnormality inclusion time synchronization parameter, based on an assumption that an abnormality is included in a measured parameter value of a time synchronization parameter having the maximum abnormality degree among the plurality of types of time synchronization parameters, and to estimate a cause of the abnormality assumed to be included in the measured parameter value of the abnormality inclusion time synchronization parameter (multiple delay prediction values are computed, [0020], the order of presentation is mainly a design choice and not given much patentable weight). [Claim 13] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is a monitoring apparatus that monitors communication between the two devices (obtain a first timestamp difference where the first timestamp difference is a difference between a sending timestamp and a receiving timestamp, [0006]). [Claim 15] The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the information processing apparatus is a monitoring apparatus that monitors communication between the two devices (obtain a first timestamp difference where the first timestamp difference is a difference between a sending timestamp and a receiving timestamp, [0006]). [Claim 16] An information processing method comprising: predicting as a prediction parameter value, a future parameter value of each of a plurality of types of time synchronization parameters each of which is used for time synchronization calculation which is calculation for synchronizing times of two devices (obtain a first timestamp difference where the first timestamp difference is a difference between a sending timestamp and a receiving timestamp, [0006]); when a measured parameter value which is a measured value corresponding to the prediction parameter value is generated with elapse of time, calculating as a prediction error, a difference between the measured parameter value and the prediction parameter value, for each of the time synchronization parameters (obtaining a delay prediction value of the target link, [0006]); calculating an abnormality degree indicating possibility that an abnormality is included in the measured parameter value, using the prediction error, for each of the time synchronization parameters (the second timestamp difference is compensated for based on the timestamp difference and time synchronization is performed based on these values); and presenting the plurality of types of time synchronization parameters in descending order of the abnormality degree (multiple delay prediction values are computed, [0020], the order of presentation is mainly a design choice and not given much patentable weight). [Claim 17] A non-transitory computer readable medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute: a parameter value prediction process to predict as a prediction parameter value, a future parameter value of each of a plurality of types of time synchronization parameters each of which is used for time synchronization calculation which is calculation for synchronizing times of two devices (obtain a first timestamp difference where the first timestamp difference is a difference between a sending timestamp and a receiving timestamp, [0006]); a prediction error calculation process, when a measured parameter value which is a measured value corresponding to the prediction parameter value is generated with elapse of time, to calculate as a prediction error, a difference between the measured parameter value and the prediction parameter value, for each of the time synchronization parameters (obtaining a delay prediction value of the target link, [0006]); an abnormality degree calculation process to calculate an abnormality degree indicating possibility that an abnormality is included in the measured parameter value, using the prediction error, for each of the time synchronization parameters (the second timestamp difference is compensated for based on the timestamp difference and time synchronization is performed based on these values, [0006]); and a presentation process to present the plurality of types of time synchronization parameters in descending order of the abnormality degree (multiple delay prediction values are computed, [0020], the order of presentation is mainly a design choice and not given much patentable weight). Claim(s) 3, 6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huawei, European Patent Application EP 4,109,788. Huawei teaches: [Claim 3] An information processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry: to predict as a prediction parameter value, a future parameter value of each of a plurality of types of time synchronization parameters each of which is used for time synchronization calculation which is calculation for synchronizing times of two devices (delay prediction value of the target link is obtained and the second timestamp difference obtained through packet selection is compensated for based on the delay prediction value, [0008]); and when a measured parameter value which is a measured value corresponding to the prediction parameter value is generated with elapse of time, to calculate as a prediction error, a difference between the measured parameter value and the prediction parameter value, for each of the time synchronization parameters (delay prediction value of the target link is obtained and the second timestamp difference obtained through packet selection is compensated for based on the delay prediction value, [0008]); wherein the measured parameter value of each of the time synchronization parameters is generated at a generation timing that repeatedly arrives (synchronization module performs loop filtering on the compensated timestamp difference by using the loop filter to obtain a second frequency of phase adjustment value, [0020]), and the processing circuitry predicts for each of time synchronization parameters, n (n≥1) prediction parameter values of n future generation timings, based on m (m≥1) measured parameter values of m past generation timings, using a learning model obtained by machine learning (online learning is used to determine a timestamp difference sequence and delay-related network parameter data, delays at moments t, t+1, t+2, . . ., are learned based on delays at moments t-n, t-n+1, . . ., [0067] – [0069]). [Claim 6] The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the information processing apparatus is connected to the two devices through a network (see Fig. 1, Huawei), and each of the time synchronization parameters is either a time in a selection device which is one device selected from the two devices, a propagation delay between the selection device and the information processing apparatus, a clock ratio between the selection device and the information processing apparatus, or a retention time of a communication frame in the selection device (delay prediction value of the target link is obtained and the second timestamp difference obtained through packet selection is compensated for based on the delay prediction value, [0008]). [Claim 14] The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the information processing apparatus is a monitoring apparatus that monitors communication between the two devices (delay prediction value of the target link is obtained and the second timestamp difference obtained through packet selection is compensated for based on the delay prediction value, [0008]). 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grantcharov, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0076966. Fan teaches a method of synchronizing transmission timings in a communications network. Fan does not teach utilizing a threshold to determine an abnormality. However, Grantcharov teaches utilizing a threshold for determining abnormalities. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing to modify the teachings of Fan to incorporate the known technique of utilizing thresholds as taught by Grantcharov in order to obtain the predictable result of avoiding insignificant data changes. The combination teaches: [Claim 2] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry emphatically presents a time synchronization parameter whose abnormality degree is equal to or greater than a threshold value, among the plurality of types of time synchronization parameters (abnormally-related durations of time during which the data values are greater or lower than a pre-defined threshold, [0007], Grantcharov). [Claim 8] The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the information processing apparatus is connected to the two devices through a network (see Fig. 1, Fan), the plurality of types of time synchronization parameters includes a time in a selection device which is one device selected from the two devices, a propagation delay between the selection device and the information processing apparatus, a clock ratio between the selection device and the information processing apparatus, and a retention time of a communication frame in the selection device (multiple delay prediction values are computed, [0020], Fan), when the time in the selection device is specified as the abnormality inclusion time synchronization parameter, the processing circuitry estimates that the selection device is the cause of the abnormality (obtain a first timestamp difference where the first timestamp difference is a difference between a sending timestamp and a receiving timestamp, [0006], Fan), when the propagation delay between the selection device and the information processing apparatus is specified as the abnormality inclusion time synchronization parameter, the processing circuitry estimates that either a transmission path from the selection device to the information processing apparatus or the information processing apparatus itself is the cause of the abnormality (abnormally-related durations of time during which the data values are greater or lower than a pre-defined threshold, [0007], Grantcharov), when the clock ratio between the selection device and the information processing apparatus is specified as the abnormality inclusion time synchronization parameter, the processing circuitry estimates that either an oscillator in the selection device, an oscillator in the information processing apparatus, or an oscillator in a communication device included in the transmission path from the selection device to the information processing apparatus is the cause of the abnormality (noise is related to crystal oscillator, [0008], Fan), and when the retention time of the communication frame in the selection device is specified as the abnormality inclusion time synchronization parameter, the processing circuitry estimates that the selection device is the cause of the abnormality (abnormally-related durations of time during which the data values are greater or lower than a pre-defined threshold, [0007], Grantcharov). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Grantcharov, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0076966. Huawei teaches a method of synchronizing transmission timings in a communications network. Huawei does not teach utilizing a threshold to determine an abnormality. However, Grantcharov teaches utilizing a threshold for determining abnormalities. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing to modify the teachings of Huawei to incorporate the known technique of utilizing thresholds as taught by Grantcharov in order to obtain the predictable result of avoiding insignificant data changes. The combination teaches: [Claim 4] The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry calculates as the prediction error, a mean absolute error between the n prediction parameter values and n measured parameter values obtained with elapse of time and corresponding to the n prediction parameter values, for each of time synchronization parameters (different statistical data was calculated, [0155], Grantcharov), and the processing circuitry calculates for each of time synchronization parameters, an abnormality degree indicating possibility that at least one measured parameter value among the n measured parameter values is an abnormality value, using the prediction error (abnormally-related durations of time during which the data values are greater or lower than a pre-defined threshold, [0007], Grantcharov). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Grantcharov as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chapman, U.S. Patent No. 7,394,830. Fan in view of Grantcharov teaches a time synchronization method in a communications system utilizing threshold values to avoid trivial changes. The combination does not teach selecting a new device for a time reading. Chapman teaches utilizing a new device for a time reading. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing to modify the combination of Fan in view of Grantcharov incorporate the known technique of selecting a new timing source as taught by Chapman in order to obtain the predictable result of error reduction. The combination teaches: [Claim 9] The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein when the selection device is estimated to be the cause of the abnormality, the processing circuitry selects as a new selection device, another device which has not been selected as the selection device among the two devices (when a timestamp is not within a predetermined range, a new device is selected, claim 9, Chapman). Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Shibata, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0134387. Fan teaches a time-synchronization method in a communications system. Fan does not teach utilizing a transmission frame. However, Shibata teaches utilizing a transmission frame. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing to modify the teachings of Fan to incorporate the known technique of utilizing a transmission frame as taught by Shibata in order to comply with networking standards. The combination teaches: [Claim 10] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is a relay apparatus that relays between the two devices, a communication frame to be communicated between the two devices for the time synchronization calculation (transmission frame contains time synchronization packet, claim 17, Shibata). [Claim 12] The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the information processing apparatus is a relay apparatus that relays between the two devices, a communication frame to be communicated between the two devices for the time synchronization calculation (transmission frame contains time synchronization packet, claim 17, Shibata). Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shibata, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0134387. Huawei teaches a time-synchronization method in a communications system. Huawei does not teach utilizing a transmission frame. However, Shibata teaches utilizing a transmission frame. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing to modify the teachings of Huawei to incorporate the known technique of utilizing a transmission frame as taught by Shibata in order to comply with networking standards. The combination teaches: [Claim 11] The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the information processing apparatus is a relay apparatus that relays between the two devices, a communication frame to be communicated between the two devices for the time synchronization calculation (transmission frame contains time synchronization packet, claim 17, Shibata). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER G SOLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7216. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th, 6:30 A - 5:00 P. 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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. PETER G. SOLINSKY Examiner Art Unit 2463 /Peter G Solinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603738
PILOT DETERMINING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598624
FEEDBACK CORRESPONDING TO UNIFIED TRANSMISSION CONFIGURATION INDICATIONS IN DOWNLINK CONTROL INFORMATION WITHOUT DOWNLINK ASSIGNMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588022
CHANNEL MAP ALLOCATION TO SUBFRAMES IN PERIODIC ADVERTISEMENT WITH RESPONSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574184
Remaining Minimum System Information Communication Method and Related Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568510
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR MANAGING MULTIPLE TCI STATES PER CORESET IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
89%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+1.9%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 685 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