DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12/11/25, for application number 18/653,666 has been received and entered into record. No claims have been amended, cancelled, or newly added. Therefore, Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 12/11/25 is acknowledged and the Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the double patenting rejection is overcome.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sole et al., 2016/0188287 A1, in view of Kubischta et al., 2005/0004787 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Sole discloses a system, comprising: a first device; and a second device [system 200 with a hub device 201 and remote devices 202 communicating via a wireless communications protocol (e.g. Bluetooth), Fig. 2; par 39]; wherein the first device has a first memory storing first computer-executable instructions executable by the first device [hub device 201 contains device 100, which includes a baseband processor 13, which comprises a microprocessor 14 and a non-volatile memory 15, Fig. 2; par 34] for causing the first device to use a short-wavelength, ultra-high frequency radio communications protocol to advertise via a unidirectional, non-bonded communications link from the first device to the second device a real-time that is being maintained by a first clock of the first device [system 200 with a hub device 201 and remote devices 202 communicating via a wireless communications protocol (e.g. Bluetooth, a short-wavelength, ultra-high frequency radio communications protocol); hub device 201 broadcasts packet 300 in accordance with the connectionless slave broadcast (CSB); the master transmits a synchronization train comprising timing and frequency schedule to the slave devices; the CSB is connectionless (i.e. non-bonded) and unidirectional, Fig. 2; par 39; par 46, ll. 6-8; par 47, ll. 1-3, 9-11; par 48, ll. 1, 8] and the second device has a second memory storing second computer-executable instructions executable by the second device [remote device 202 contains device 100, which includes a baseband processor 13, which comprises a microprocessor 14 and a non-volatile memory 15, Fig. 2; par 34] for causing a clock discipline routine of the second device to use the received real-time to discipline a second clock of the second device such that the second clock of the second device is synchronized to the first clock of the first device [slave synchronises [sic] its Bluetooth clock to that of the master, par 47, ll. 17-19].
However, while Sole discloses a second device synchronizing its clock to that of the first device, Sole does not explicitly teach the second clock of the second device is gradually synchronized to the real-time that is being maintained by the first clock of the first device.
In the analogous art of clock synchronization, Kubischta teaches the second clock of the second device is gradually synchronized to the real-time that is being maintained by the first clock of the first device [the controller module may provide a continuous real-time clock signal to the conventional simulator. The conventional simulator synchronizes its own clock to the continuous real-time clock signal on a continuous basis, par 14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sole and Kubischta before him before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate the synchronization as taught by Kubischta into the system as disclosed by Sole to provide for realistic emulation through use of a real time clock [Kubischta, par 2, 3].
Regarding Claim 6, Sole and Kubischta disclose the system as recited in Claim 1. While Kubischta discloses the real-time of the master device [par 14], Sole further discloses wherein the first device periodically advertises the time that is being maintained by the first clock of the first device according to a first schedule and wherein the first device also uses the short-wavelength, ultra-high frequency radio communications protocol to advertise the first schedule [hub device 201 transmits broadcast data in the Connectionless Slave Broadcast mode (which is a feature of Bluetooth, a short-wavelength, ultra-high frequency radio communication protocol); the broadcast data is transmitted in accordance with a timing and frequency schedule, par 47, ll. 1-3; 7-8].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sole and Kubischta, in view of Goel et al., US PGPub 2019/0190635.
Regarding Claim 2, Sole and Kubischta disclose the system as recited in Claim 1. However, while Sole discloses the first computer-executable instructions executable by the first device [hub device 201 contains device 100, which includes a baseband processor 13, which comprises a microprocessor 14 and a non-volatile memory 15, Fig. 2; par 34] and Kubischta further teaches the first device with a real-time clock [par 14], the combination of references does not explicitly teach causing the first device to use a communication received from a third device external to a local, networked system which includes the first device and the second device to update the real-time that is being maintained by the first clock of the first device.
In the analogous at of wireless communication synchronization, Goel teaches causing the first device to use a communication received from a third device external to a local, networked system which includes the first device and the second device to update the real-time that is being maintained by the first clock of the first device [FIG. 21 a base signal transmits a timing signal to a user equipment (2105) and configure a timer function of the local user equipment based on the timing signal (2110). The base station is external to the local networked user equipment and communicates over cellular wireless communication, par 209; par 5, 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sole, Kubischta, and Goel before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate synchronization from an external device as taught by Goel, into the method as disclosed by Sole and Kubischta, to allow for time synchronization of wireless communications [Goel, par 4].
Regarding Claim 3, Sole, Kubischta, and Goel disclose the method as recited in Claim 2. Goel further teaches wherein the third device communicates with the first device via use of a radio frequency broadcast message [the wireless communications system 100 may be a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, an LTE-Advanced (LTE-A) network, an LTE-A Pro network, or a New Radio (NR) network, par 47].
Regarding Claim 4, Sole, Kubischta, and Goel disclose the method as recited in Claim 2. Sole further discloses a communications device comprising an Internet server [hub device may be connected to a media source such as an internet media provider, par 40, ll. 1-6].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sole, Kubischta, and Goel, and further in view of Bauer, US Pat. No. 6,061,450.
Regarding Claim 5, Sole, Kubischta, and Goel teach the method as recited in Claim 2. However, Sole, Kubischta, and Goel do not disclose wherein the third device comprises a cable system head-end device.
In the analogous art of communications systems, Bauer teaches wherein a device comprises a cable system head-end device [system of Fig. 3 includes cable modem (302) and cable headend device (306), col. 4, ll. 46-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sole, Kubischta, Goel, and Bauer before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a cable headend system taught by Bauer into the method as disclosed by Sole, Kubischta, and Goel, to allow for use of the system in cable communications environments [Bauer, col. 2, ll. 44-52].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sole and Kubischta, and further in view of Abraham et al., US PGPub 2018/0063784.
Regarding Clam 7, Sole and Kubischta disclose the method as recited in Claim 6. However, while Sole discloses the second computer-executable instructions executable by the second device [remote device 202 contains device 100, which includes a baseband processor 13, which comprises a microprocessor 14 and a non-volatile memory 15, Fig. 2; par 34] and Kubischta discloses a first device with a real-time clock [par 14], the combination of references does not explicitly teach causing the second device to use the received first schedule to create a second schedule for use by the second device to ensure that the second device is readied to receive the real-time that is being maintained by the first clock of the first device when advertised by the first device according to the first schedule.
In the analogous art of wireless data communication, Abraham teaches causing the second device to use the received first schedule to create a second schedule for use by the second device to ensure that the second device is readied to receive the real-time that is being maintained by the first clock of the first device when advertised by the first device according to the first schedule [the scheduled time at which a discovery signal is transmitted is negotiated and “T1 (time of reception device) may be set according to a clock value of a clock of the first device. Tl may be scheduled to occur shortly before wakeup in a second device”, par 51; the second schedule, at which the device wakes up to receive data, determines the time the device is placed in an active state (ready) to receive data, par 92].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sole, Kubischta, and Abraham before him before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the periodic transmission as taught by Abraham into the method as disclosed by Sole and Kubischta, to reduce power consumption [Abraham, par 5].
Regarding Claim 8, Sole, Kubischta, and Abraham disclose the method as recited in Claim 7. While Kubischta discloses a first device with a real-time clock [par 14], Abraham further discloses causing the second device to use the received real-time that is being maintained by the first clock of the first device when advertised by the first device according to the first schedule to automatically adjust the second schedule [T1 may be set according to a clock value of a clock of the first device transmitted according to a predetermined, pre- negotiated schedule; the second schedule, at which the device wakes up to receive discover beacons, is automatically adjusted with respect to T1 of the first device, par 51].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kubischta “does not expressly describe a clock being ‘gradually synchronized.’” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in the rejection previously presented and acknowledged by Applicant, Kubischta teaches synchronizing a clock to a continuous real-time clock signal on a continuous basis [par 14]. Continuously synchronizing to another clock is by definition a gradual synchronization. That is, there is continual synchronization taking place rather than a sudden, intermittent synchronization. Thus, while the phrase “gradual synchronization” is not explicitly recited, an equivalent concept is nonetheless described and taught by Kubischta.
Furthermore, paragraph 18 of the Specification as filed provides, “In this regard, it will be appreciated that, under ordinary conditions, a clock discipline routine gradually slews the clock to the correct time, so that the time is effectively continuous and never stepped forward or backward.” (emphasis added) With no other definition provided in the Specification, it is unclear why or how a continuous synchronization as taught by Kubischta differs from the gradual synchronization of the instant application. Should Applicant intend for another definition, clarification in the Specification and claim limitations may better distinguish such gradual synchronization from the rejection of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175