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 .
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) 1,2,9,15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 20190007151).
Re claim 1:
Goel discloses a communication device that forms a network with another communication device, the communication device comprising (Fig. 2 ref. UE and Para[0051] In some aspects, a local communication network may generally refer to any non-cellular communication network, such as an Ethernet, a LAN, a Wi-Fi network… UE 205 may obtain time synchronization from base station 210 (e.g., a eNB/gNB) over a cellular link):
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not a base station outside the network supports time synchronization with predetermined precision, based on information relating to time synchronization received from the base station (Fig.9 ref. 905 Obtain, by a UE, a timing synchronization signal from a base station over a cellular wireless communication link and [0086] Timing synchronization manager 625 may obtain, by a UE, a timing synchronization signal from a base station over a cellular wireless communication link and [0087] Timer function manager 630 may configure, based on the timing synchronization signal, a timer function of the UE as a PTP server and Para.[0087] PTP announce manager 635 may configure at least one of: a server accuracy field of the PTP announce message or a server class field of the PTP announce message based on the determination and Para.[0066] UE 315 may also configure PTP announce message parameters based on the cellular link, e.g., the accuracy and precision parameters which may be, in some aspects, influenced by the cellular link);
a time synchronization processing unit configured to synchronize time in the communication device with time in the base station, in a case where the base station supports time synchronization with the predetermined precision (Para.[0072] Base station 435 may obtain timing synchronization signals from PTP server 415 and provide the timing synchronization signal to UE 455); and
a control unit configured to control the communication device (Fig.9 ref. 910 Configure, based on the timing synchronization signal, a timer function of the UE as a precision time protocol (PTP) server),
wherein, in a case where the time in the communication device is synchronized with the time in the base station, the control unit causes the communication device to operate as a time synchronization source for the other communication device included in the network (Para.[0064] For example, UE 315 may receive or otherwise obtain a timing synchronization signal from base station 310 over a cellular wireless communication link. UE 315 may configure a timer function as a PTP server and provide a timing synchronization signal to device 320 over the local communication link. Accordingly, once UE 315 is configured as a PTP server (e.g., grandmaster clock), UE 315 may provide PTP timing synchronization signals over a local network to device 320).
Goel does not explicitly state a predetermined precision. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to use a predetermined precision based on the communication needs. Fan (US 20220361129) is further evidence relied upon that shows predetermined precision (Para.[0157]).
Re claim 2:
Goel discloses the communication device according to claim 1, wherein the base station is a base station according to a 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project) standard, and wherein the network is a network that is based on a communication standard different from the 3GPP standard (Fig.9 ref. 920 Transmit the PTP announce message over a local communication network and Para[0051] In some aspects, a local communication network may generally refer to any non-cellular communication network, such as an Ethernet, a LAN, a Wi-Fi network… UE 205 may obtain time synchronization from base station 210 (e.g., a eNB/gNB) over a cellular link).
Re claim 9:
Goel discloses the communication device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the time in the communication device is synchronized with the time in the base station, the control unit causes the communication device to operate as a master device and a grandmaster in the network for the other communication device included in the network (Para.[0064] For example, UE 315 may receive or otherwise obtain a timing synchronization signal from base station 310 over a cellular wireless communication link. UE 315 may configure a timer function as a PTP server and provide a timing synchronization signal to device 320 over the local communication link. Accordingly, once UE 315 is configured as a PTP server (e.g., grandmaster clock), UE 315 may provide PTP timing synchronization signals over a local network to device 320).
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Claim(s) 3,4,10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 20190007151) in view of Lee (EP 3253120).
Re claim 3:
As discussed above, Goel meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Goel does not explicitly disclose the communication device according to claim 1, further comprising: an operation unit configured to accepting an operation made by a user, wherein the operation unit accepts a selection operation for causing the communication device to operate as a master device that operates as an access point in a wireless LAN or a slave device that operates as a station in the wireless LAN.
Lee discloses the communication device according to claim 1, further comprising: an operation unit configured to accepting an operation made by a user, wherein the operation unit accepts a selection operation for causing the communication device to operate as a master device that operates as an access point in a wireless LAN or a slave device that operates as a station in the wireless LAN (Para.[0038] In one scheme, for example, an administrator of the LAN may himself determine one of the access points acting as the role of master access point).
Goel and Lee are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include a user selection to operate as a master device as taught by Lee in order to reduce service interruption (Lee Para.[0004]).
Re claim 4:
As discussed above, Goel meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Goel does not explicitly disclose the communication device according to claim 3, further comprising: a communication unit configured to communicate with the base station in a case where the communication device is selected as the master device.
Lee discloses the communication device according to claim 3, further comprising: a communication unit configured to communicate with the base station in a case where the communication device is selected as the master device (Para.[0007] a WAN network unit used to link to an external network and Para.[0023] Both the access points 31, 32 include WAN network units 314, 324 used to connect to WAN – Examiner Note: WAN is implement with a base station).
Goel and Lee are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include a user selection to operate as a master device as taught by Lee in order to reduce service interruption (Lee Para.[0004]).
Re claim 10:
Goel discloses the communication device according to claim 3, wherein the operation unit is capable of accepting setting of a first mode in which the communication device operates in a power saving state or a second mode in which the communication device does not operate in the power saving state (Para.[0034] In some cases, an MTC device may operate using half-duplex (one-way) communications at a reduced peak rate. MTC devices may also be configured to enter a power saving “deep sleep” mode when not engaging in active communications. In some cases, MTC or IoT devices may be designed to support mission critical functions and wireless communications system may be configured to provide ultra-reliable communications for these functions).
Re claim 11:
Goel discloses the communication device according to claim 10, wherein in a case where the communication device operates as the time synchronization source in the first mode, the time synchronization processing unit performs time synchronization with the base station after a first predetermined period has elapsed, and in a case where the communication device operates as the time synchronization source in the second mode, the time synchronization processing unit performs time synchronization with the base station after a second predetermined period that is shorter than the first predetermined period has elapsed (Para.[0025] [0025] Precision Time Protocol (PTP) techniques may specify a variety of different clock types, e.g., Ordinary clock, Boundary clock, etc. In some aspects, a particular clock type may maintain a separate copy of a PTP state machine for each port. The state machine may be based on data comparison from different clocks. PTP techniques may include a delay response mechanism where delay request-response messages are exchanged to identify timing offsets from the master time at each device. The request-response exchange may identify the transit delays (e.g., the time between message transmission and message reception) and, in the instance where there is an intermediary device acting as a Transparent clock, the residence time (e.g., the time between when the intermediary device receives a message and when the intermediary device relays the message). Implementation of PTP techniques in a cellular link where a user equipment (UE) acts as the PTP clock, however, may be determined based on the link characteristics.).
Goel does not explicitly disclose a shorter period for a second node. As shown above, the delay period if Goel is based on link characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the delay would thus be different when the characteristics are different and one may be shorted than another.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 20190007151) in view of Lee (EP 3253120) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Itagaki (US 20190261439).
Re claim 5:
As discussed above, Goel in view of Lee meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Goel does not explicitly disclose the communication device according to claim 4, wherein the communication unit communicates with the base station after setting Priority1 value of PTP (Precision Time Protocol) to 255, which is a maximum value.
Itagaki discloses the communication device according to claim 4, wherein the communication unit communicates with the base station after setting Priority1 value of PTP (Precision Time Protocol) to 255, which is a maximum value (Para.[0092] Additionally, the timeSource value is used as “clock accuracy information” according to the above embodiments, and additionally any of priority 1, priority 2, clockClass, and clockAccuracy in the IEEE1588 standard, or a combination thereof may be used therefor. priority 1 and priority 2 are a user freely-settable value between 0 and 255. A low value is prioritized. A default value of 128 is defined for default PTP profile).
As shown above, Itagaki shows using a value of 0-255 for a priority value of PTP. Itagaki does not explicitly disclose communicating after the value is set to 255. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the value of 255 for determining to communicate as a matter of design choice.
Goel and Itagaki are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include priority1 value as taught by Itagaki in order to reduce service interruption (Itagaki Para.[0004]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 20190007151) in view of Lee (EP 3253120) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Andres Maldonado (US 20240393473).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above, Goel in view of Lee meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Goel does not explicitly disclose the communication device according to claim 4, wherein in a case where TimeInfo is included in SIB (System Information Block) 9 received from the base station via the communication unit, the determination unit determines that the base station supports time synchronization with the predetermined precision.
Andres Maldonado discloses the communication device according to claim 4, wherein in a case where TimeInfo is included in SIB (System Information Block) 9 received from the base station via the communication unit, the determination unit determines that the base station supports time synchronization with the predetermined precision (Para.[0073] Specifically, the SIB9 message may comprise time information (“timeInfo” field) which may comprise UTC time information (“timeInfoUTC” field), daylight saving time information (“dayLightSavingTime” field), leap second information (“leapSeconds” field) and/or local time offset information (“localTimeOffset” field) and Para.[0019] In addition to referenceTimeInfo, the terminal device may receive a 5G clock or some other clock(s) via precision time protocol (PTP) ).
As shown above, Andres Maldonado using timeinfo to determine clock synchronization. Andres Maldonado does not explicitly disclose support is determined based on the presence of received timeinfo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the presence of timeinfo as a determination for precision because the timeinfo field provides information used for synchronization.
Goel and Andres Maldonado are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include a SIB9 with timeinfo as taught by Andres Maldonado in order to improve system performance (Andres Maldonado Para.[0030]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 20190007151) in view of Lee (EP 3253120) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jung (US 20240214877).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, Goel in view of Lee meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Goel does not explicitly disclose the communication device according to claim 4, wherein in a case where AbsoluteTimeInfo is included in an RRC (Radio Resource Control) message received from the base station via the communication unit, the determination unit determines that the base station supports time synchronization with the predetermined precision.
Jung discloses the communication device according to claim 4, wherein in a case where AbsoluteTimeInfo is included in an RRC (Radio Resource Control) message received from the base station via the communication unit, the determination unit determines that the base station supports time synchronization with the predetermined precision (Para.[0099] In one example, store absoluteTimeInfo, traceReference, traceRecordingSessionRef, and tce-ID included in the received LoggedMeasurementConfiguration message and Para.[0094] If the UE 4-01 in the RRC connected mode receives a LoggedMeasurementConfiguration message ).
As shown above, Jung using absolutimeinfo to determine timing information. Jung does not explicitly disclose support is determined based on the presence of received absolutetimeinfo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the presence of absolutetimeinfo as a determination for precision because the absolutetimeinfo field provides information used for synchronization.
Goel and Jung are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include an RRC message with absolutetimeinfo as taught by Jung in order to implement an efficient communication system (Jung Para.[0013]).
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 20190007151) in view of Lee (EP 3253120) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fan (US 20220361129).
Re claim 8:
As discussed above, Goel in view of Lee meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Goel does not explicitly disclose the communication device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the base station does not support time synchronization with the predetermined precision, the control unit causes display unit to display information indicating that the base station does not support time synchronization with the predetermined precision.
Fan discloses the communication device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the base station does not support time synchronization with the predetermined precision, the control unit causes display unit to display information indicating that the base station does not support time synchronization with the predetermined precision (Para.[0157] It should be noted that, to avoid a case in which a requirement for TSN synchronization cannot be met because the target access network device to which the terminal is handed over does not support high-precision time synchronization, when exchanging information through an interface (for example, an X2 or Xn interface) between base stations, a source access network device and the target access network device may exchange information about whether the source access network device and the target access network device support high-precision time synchronization. When handing over a terminal that needs to perform high-precision synchronization, the source access network device sends a handover request message only to a target access network device that supports high-precision time synchronization).
As shown above, Fan discloses not using a network that does not support high-precision. Fan does not explicitly disclose displaying information that the precision is not supported. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display when precision is not supported in order to allow a network operator to make decisions about the network configuration.
Goel and Fan are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include an RRC message with absolutetimeinfo as taught by Jung in order to improve TSN performance (Fan Para.[0006]).
Re claim 8:
As discussed above, Goel in view of Lee meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Goel does not explicitly disclose the communication device according to claim 11, wherein the control unit checks a time error occurring between the base station and the communication device after time synchronization with the base station performed after the first predetermined period has elapsed and stops communication with the base station.
Fan discloses the communication device according to claim 11, wherein the control unit checks a time error occurring between the base station and the communication device after time synchronization with the base station performed after the first predetermined period has elapsed and stops communication with the base station (Para.[0074] In addition, when the PTP message enters the 5G system via a device-side TSN translator (device-side TSN Translator, DS-TT) of UE 1, the DS-TT of UE 1 adds a 5G timestamp Tin, and the DS-TT of UE 2 sends the PTP message at 5G time Tout. In this case, the DS-TT of UE 2 adds a value of Tout-Tin, which indicates the duration in which the PTP message stays in the 5G system, to a correctionField field of the PTP message. Because a synchronization error between UE 1 and a gNB is Δ1, and a synchronization error between UE 2 and the gNB is Δ1, a synchronization error between UE 1 and UE 2 is at least 2*Δ1>1 μs).
Goel and Fan are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include timing error as taught by Fan in order to improve TSN performance (Fan Para.[0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights