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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/23/2026 has been entered. Independent Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Dependent claims 9, and 18-26 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims are new and have been entered. Claims 1-26 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to Claim Objections have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/23/2026 on page 7 of applicant’s remark regarding Claims 9 and 12 under 35 USC § 112(b). The applicant argues that the additional amendment overcomes the rejection, however, the amendment merely further describes how the Pdelay data is being used, not the nature of the Pdelay itself as stated in the rejection. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention as opposed to distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/23/2026 on page 8 of applicant’s remark regarding Claim 1 and 14 under 35 USC § 103. The applicant argues that Mirabito fails to teach a sync message with an estimated time the sync message was transmitted,”. However, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/23/2026 on pages 8-9 of applicant’s remark regarding Claim 1 and 14 under 35 USC § 103. The applicant argues that Mirabito fails to teach an ingress timestamp delta and an egress timestamp delta. However, the claim language in question is specifically for an “ingress timestamp delta and an egress timestamp delta”, which can be interpreted as a single delta between the ingress timestamp and the egress timestamp, instead of the additional specificity of two distinct deltas. The specification of the applicant does specify them as distinct in paragraph 0023 as syncEgressTimestampDelta and syncIngressTimestampDelta, which could overcome Mirabito in light of the additional specificity of the nature of deltas. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention of an ingress timestamp delta and an egress timestamp delta from the teachings of Mirabito. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 22-26 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. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9 and Claim 22
The claims recite “excluding Pdelay data”. The claim is not clear as to what Pdelay data is, how long it was previously active, how it is relevant to the synchronization from a non-primary clock to the primary clock.
There is additionally a lacking for antecedent basis for Pdelay.
For examining purposes, the examiner is considering Pdelay a representation for the delay inherent in the system.
Claims 10-11 and 23-26 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 9 and 22 accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, 14-20, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirabito (Pub. No.: US 20220173884 A1, hereafter “Mirabito”) in view of Mani (Pub. No.: US 20140270805 A1, hereafter “Mani”).
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 14
Mirabito teaches a computer-implemented method and system
A computer-implemented method (Mirabito ¶0042: electronically processing instructions) for synchronizing (Mirabito ¶0042: synchronize the clocks) a non-primary clock (Mirabito Fig. 1B: 154) at a first node (Mirabito Fig. 1A: 150, Passive Time Device) to a primary clock (Mirabito ¶0042: clock of time protocol master) at a second node (Mirabito Fig. 1A: 100, Time Protocol Master) in a multi-node broadcast network (Mirabito Fig. 1A: Segments A 108, B 110, and C 112; Mirabito teaches a method for synchronizing clocks in a multi-node network from a primary Time Protocol Master to a Passive Time Device, see Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B, and ¶0042), the method comprising: receiving (Mirabito Fig. 2A: 200) a first (Mirabito Fig. 2A: 200), a second (Mirabito Fig. 2A: 206), and a third (Mirabito Fig. 2A: 210) synchronization/follow-up (sync/follow-up) (Mirabito ¶0067-¶0077: timestamp pair) message pair (Mirabito ¶0067-¶0077: first and second timestamp pair), each comprising a sync message (Mirabito ¶0067: relating to a first time protocol message, e.g. a PTP sync message) with an estimated time the sync message was transmitted (Mirabito Fig. 2A: 202) and a follow-up message with an actual time the sync message was transmitted (Mirabito Fig. 2A: 204; Mirabito teaches three communication messages from the time protocol master used for synchronization using a comparison of different times from the sync message transmissions, see Fig. 2A and ¶0067-¶0077), wherein the method further comprises: responsive to the second sync/follow-up message pair (Mirabito Fig. 2A: 214), setting a neighbor rate ratio (Mirabito Fig. 2B: 254, Perform an offset calculation) between the primary clock and the non-primary clock to a midpoint value (Mirabito ¶0086: OMP = ((TR2M-TR2P-TR1P+TT1M)/2)+C) for non-primary clock control based on an ingress timestamp delta (Mirabito ¶0080: first time protocol message was received) and an egress timestamp delta (Mirabito ¶0080: second time protocol was received; Mirabito teaches generating an average that includes the timestamps for the different time protocol message time differentials, see Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, ¶0080, and ¶0086);
and adjusting (Mirabito Fig. 2B: 256) the non-primary clock in synchronization (Mirabito ¶0092: action taken may include adjusting the clock of the passive time device) with the primary clock responsive to at least the midpoint value (Mirabito ¶0092: action is based off of the calculated offset) being set to the neighbor rate ratio (Mirabito ¶0092: set to match or at least nearly match; Mirabito teaches adjusting the clock of the passive time to device based off of the calculated offset to match or nearly match the time protocol master, see Fig. 2B and ¶0092).
Mirabito does not explicitly teach
responsive to the third sync/follow-up message pair, calculating a phase value of the primary clock by setting an expected primary clock time value to a current timestamp of the primary clock without modification of the midpoint value;
However, Mani teaches
responsive to the third sync/follow-up message pair (Mani ¶0040: method for estimating the asymmetry of clock frequency), calculating a phase value (Mani Fig. 5: 510, Run Master physical layer clock at +Δ offset, e.g. the phase reference, see ¶0040-¶0042) of the primary clock (Mani Fig. 5: 501, master clocks) by setting an expected primary clock time value to a current timestamp of the primary clock (Mani ¶0040-¶0042: phase reference) without modification of the midpoint value (Mani Fig. 5: 515, place slaves in holdover; Mani teaches an operation to syntonize a clock operation between a master and slave clock, that involves generating a phase reference value with the master clock to be used to syntonize, see Fig. 5 and ¶0040-¶0042);
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mirabito by way of Mani, to include an element that teaches an operation to syntonize a clock operation between a master and slave clock, that involves generating a phase reference value with the master clock to be used to syntonize, as taught by Mani in Fig. 5 and ¶0040-¶0042, to better improve precision time protocol systems and allow different protocols for optimizing synchronization costs and reduce the burden placed on devices using the proposed invention.
Claim 14 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art, Mirabito teaches
a sync processor having a frame receiver configured to receive (Mirabito ¶0025: controller/microprocessor)
and a pi controller (Mirabito Fig. 1B: 160) configured to adjust (Mirabito Fig. 1B: Arrow from 160 to 154) the non-primary clock (Mirabito Fig. 1B: 156) in synchronization with the primary clock (Mirabito Fig. 1A: 100) responsive to at least the midpoint value (Mirabito ¶0086: OMP = ((TR2M-TR2P-TR1P+TT1M)/2)+C) being set to the neighbor rate ratio (Mirabito Fig. 2B: 254, Perform an offset calculation; Mirabito teaches a offset calculation device being configured to the clock device with the previously described offset calculation, see Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B, Fig. 2B, ¶0025, and ¶0086).
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 15
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Mirabito further teaches
responsive to the first sync message pair, fixing the rate ratio to a predetermined value (Mirabito Fig. 2A: Step 214 follows after Step 212, which follows after Step 200, see Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 16
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 2. Mirabito further teaches
further comprising fixing the rate ratio to the predetermined value during a given interval (Mirabito Fig. 2B: 256) independent of respective primary clock timestamp (Mirabito ¶0092: passive time device may adjust closer to that of the time protocol master) and the respective non-primary clock timestamp of the first sync/follow-up message pair (Mirabito ¶0092: cause the clocks to converge with respect to time; Mirabito teaches using the offset calculations to adjust the internal clock for the passive time device to move the clocks closer without directly copying the clock information, see Fig. 2B and ¶0092).
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 17
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Mirabito further teaches
calculating the rate ratio based on an average determined from the respective primary clock timestamp (Mirabito ¶0086: OMP = ((TR2M-TR2P-TR1P+TT1M)/2)+C) and the respective non-primary timestamp of both the first sync/follow-up message pair (Mirabito ¶0087: TR1P is the timestamp of the second time protocol message) and the second sync message pair (Mirabito ¶0087: TR2P is the timestamp of the second time protocol message; Mirabito teaches the average being determined by at least the timestamp of the first and second time protocol message, see ¶0086-¶0087).
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 18
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Mirabito further teaches
adding the egress timestamp delta (Mirabito ¶0086: /2) to a nominal midpoint to obtain a sum (Mirabito ¶0086: OMP = (TR2M-TR2P-TR1P+TT1M), and dividing the sum by the ingress timestamp delta (Mirabito ¶0086: /2; Mirabito teaches applying a number to the sum in a diving operator to the sum, see ¶0086).
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 19
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Mirabito further teaches
calculating an egress timestamp as a sum of a correction field (Mirabito ¶0086: OMP = ((TR2M-TR2P-TR1P+TT1M)/2)+C) and an origin timestamp field of the second sync/follow-up message pair (Mirabito ¶0087: TR2P is the timestamp of the second time protocol message; Mirabito teaches an average including the timestamp of the second time protocol message, see ¶0086-¶0087).
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 20
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Mirabito further teaches
calculating an egress timestamp as a sum of multiple a correction fields in multiple ones of the first and second sync/follow-up message pair (Mirabito ¶0086: OMP = ((TR2M-TR2P-TR1P+TT1M)/2)+C) and an origin timestamp field of the second sync/follow-up message pair (Mirabito ¶0087: TR2P is the timestamp of the second time protocol message; Mirabito teaches that the average is using the time protocol message from the time protocol master, see ¶0086-¶0087).
Regarding Claim 9 and Claim 22
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Mirabito further teaches
further comprising excluding (Mirabito ¶0091: calibration based on known asymmetry) Pdelay data (Mirabito ¶0091: delay times) when synchronizing the non-primary clock to the primary clock (Mirabito Fig. 2B: 250; Mirabito teaches a calibration based on a known asymmetry to reduce the inherent delay time for the time differential, see Fig. 2B and ¶0091).
Regarding Claim 10 and Claim 23
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 9. Mirabito further teaches
adding a mean link delay field (Mirabito ¶0086: OMP = ((TR2M-TR2P-TR1P+TT1M)/2)+C) to an egress timestamp to account for cable latency between a node comprising the primary clock (Mirabito ¶0087: C is a time delay for the time protocol message to travel) and another node comprising the non-primary clock (Mirabito ¶0087: the time delay is between the passive time device and the link between the link between the time protocol master and the time protocol slave; Mirabito teaches a delay value being added for the latency between two elements, see ¶0086-¶0087).
Regarding Claim 11 and Claim 24
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 10. Mirabito further teaches
calculating a time error (Mirabito ¶0084: time delay may be ascertained) between the primary clock and the non-primary clock (Mirabito ¶0086: distance of the tap) based on a sum of a value of the egress timestamp (Mirabito ¶0086: value may be ascertained by performing measurements prior to performing the calculation) and a value of the link delay field minus a value of an ingress timestamp (Mirabito ¶0086: OMP = ((TR2M-TR2P-TR1P+TT1M)/2)+C; Mirabito teaches calculating a time delay based off of the distance from the time protocol master, see ¶0084 and ¶0086).
Regarding Claim 12 and Claim 25
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Mirabito further teaches
generating the first, the second, and the third sync/follow-up message pairs by a sync processor having a frame receiver (Mirabito ¶0031: includes functionality to send and/or receive packets) configured to receive frames from the primary clock and the non-primary clock (Mirabito ¶0031: corresponding actors; Mirabito teaches the functionality for the network devices to send and receive packets from corresponding actors, see ¶0031).
Regarding Claim 13 and Claim 26
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 1 and Claim 23. Mirabito further teaches
providing the first sync/follow-up message pair and the second sync/follow-up message pair to a neighbor rate ratio algorithm (Mirabito ¶0055: offset calculation device may use the pair of timestamps from the passive time device (150)); and providing the third sync/follow-up message pair to a pi (Mirabito Fig. 1B: 160) controller configured to control the non-primary clock phase (Mirabito ¶0055: offset calculation device may use the pair of timestamps from the passive time device (150); Mirabito teaches a device that receives the pair of timestamps from another device, wherein it performs the offset calculations with the given information, see Fig. 1B and ¶0055).
Claim(s) 8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirabito (Pub. No.: US 20220173884 A1, hereafter “Mirabito”) in view of Mani (Pub. No.: US 20140270805 A1, hereafter “Mani”), further in view of Pu (Pub. No.: US 20170054538 A1, hereafter “Pu”).
Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 21
Mirabito in view of Mani teaches a computer-implemented method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Mirabito in view of Mani does not explicitly teach
selectively calculating, responsive to a value of a flag, an egress timestamp as: a sum of a correction field and an origin timestamp field of the second sync/follow-up message pair, or a sum of multiple a correction fields in multiple ones of the first and second sync/follow-up message pair and an origin timestamp field of the second sync/follow-up message pair.
However, Pu teaches
selectively calculating (Pu ¶0050: for each input sample of possible PSS sequences), responsive to a value of a flag (Pu ¶0050: select), an egress timestamp as: a sum of a correction field and an origin timestamp field of the second sync/follow-up message pair (Pu ¶0051: sum together cross-correlation values for each input sample index-PSS sequence index), or a sum of multiple a correction fields in multiple ones of the first and second sync/follow-up message pair and an origin timestamp field of the second sync/follow-up message pair (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim; Pu teaches selectively generating a sum across multiple indexed-values for synchronization, see ¶0050-¶0051).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mirabito in view of Mani by way of Pu, to include an element that teaches selectively generating a sum across multiple indexed-values for synchronization, as taught by Pu in ¶0050-¶0051, to better improve synchronizing by selectively allowing a system to enable and disable the system at will and reduce power consumption and not have the system constantly correct when the benefits would be minimal and waste additional effort.
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 JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
