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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “an accuracy range of the determined time value” is vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the limitation are not reasonably explained. The claim does not define what constitutes an “accuracy range” or what is the relationship between the accuracy range and the determined time value. It is also unclear whether the recitation refers to a time uncertainty interval, timing error bound, tolerance, confidence interval, precision metric, or predefined timing quality class. As such, it is unclear what content in the recited second filed would satisfy the limitation.
Similar issue occurs in claims 9 and 17.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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 1-2, 8-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abreu et al (US 2023/0262624) in view of Lin et al (US 2013/0250850). Hereinafter referred to as Abreu and Lin.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Abreu discloses an apparatus comprising one or more memories; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (see at least figures 1: telecommunication devices must have a processor and a memory(ies)), a combination of the one or more processors configured to: determine a time value (see at least figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0040]-[0047]: RTI is determined and transmitted/received); generate a message comprising: a first field using a first set of bits to indicate seconds of the time value and a second set of bits to indicate fractions of seconds of the time value (see at least figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0040]-[0047]: The indicated time is referenced at the network, i.e., without compensating for RF propagation delay. The indicated time in 10 ns unit from the origin is refDays*86400*1000*100000 + refSeconds*1000*100000 + refMilliSeconds*100000 + refTenNanoSeconds); and a second field indicating an accuracy range of the determined time value (see at least figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0040]-[0047]: uncertainty: This field indicates the uncertainty of the reference time information provided by the time field); and wirelessly transmit the message (see at least figure 1, abstract and paragraph [0001]: Then, the apparatus causes transmission of information on at least one of the first time uncertainty and a combined time uncertainty to one or more target terminal devices. The combined time uncertainty corresponds to a combination of the first-time uncertainty and a second time uncertainty. The second time uncertainty corresponds to a time uncertainty of reference time defined in reference time information… Various example embodiments relate to wireless communications).
Abreu’s, transmissions are bits structured, discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of explicitly disclosing using a first set of bits to indicate seconds of the time value and a second set of bits to indicate fractions of seconds. However, Lin, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches transmitting messages where the time reference/value is configures over multiple bits in a field (see at least paragraph [0061]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching Lin, as indicated, into the communication method of transmitting time information for synchronization.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 12, Abreu in view of Lin discloses an apparatus wherein the first set of bits comprises sixteen bits; the second set of bits comprises sixteen bits; and the second field comprises four bits (Lin: see at least paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claims 8 and 16. Abreu in view of Lin discloses an apparatus wherein the combination of the one or more processors is further configured to receive a request to advertise timing capabilities and wherein generating the message is in response to the request (Abreu: see at least figure 4 element 403).
Claims 3-7, 11-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abreu in view of Lin and further in view of Pannell (US 8,296,421).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19. Abreu in view of Lin discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of determining a timing protocol implemented by the apparatus, and wherein the message further comprises a third field indicating the timing protocol. However, Pannell, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a timing protocol implemented by the apparatus, and wherein the message further comprises a third field indicating the timing protocol (see at least figures 6 (Version PTP) and table 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Pannell, as indicated, into the communication method of Abreu in view of Lin for the purpose of increasing a communication capability.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Abreu in view of Lin and further in view of Pannell discloses an apparatus wherein the combination of the one or more processors is further configured to reference a table to determine a bit value indicating the timing protocol; and add the bit value to the third field (see at least figure 6 and table 3).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 20. Abreu in view of Lin discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of determining a timing parameter, and wherein the message further comprises a third field indicating the timing parameter. However, Pannell, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a timing parameter, and wherein the message further comprises a third field indicating the timing parameter (see at least figures 6 (Version PTP), table 3 and “These timing protocol frames can be used to communicate a network time to each participating device 104 on the network in order to capture local arrival and departure times of the protocol frames. In each device 104, the local arrival time of a timing protocol frame (e.g., as determined using time stamping logic) can be compared to a time at which the protocol (e.g., PTP) indicates the timing protocol frame should have arrived at the device”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Pannell, as indicated, into the communication method of Abreu in view of Lin for the purpose of increasing a communication capability.
Regarding claims 6 and 14. Abreu in view of Lin and further in view of Pannell discloses an apparatus wherein the combination of the one or more processors is further configured to: reference a table to determine a bit value indicating the timing parameter; and add the bit value to the third field (see at least figures 6 (Version PTP) and table 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Abreu in view of Lin discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a third field indicating time of flight parameters. However, Pannell, from the same field of endeavor, teaches of a third field indicating time of flight parameters (see at least figures 6 (Version PTP), table 3 and “These timing protocol frames can be used to communicate a network time to each participating device 104 on the network in order to capture local arrival and departure times of the protocol frames. In each device 104, the local arrival time of a timing protocol frame (e.g., as determined using time stamping logic) can be compared to a time at which the protocol (e.g., PTP) indicates the timing protocol frame should have arrived at the device”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Pannell, as indicated, into the communication method of Abreu in view of Lin for the purpose of increasing a communication capability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights