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 Objections
Claims 8-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 8, in line 3, replace “implement following functions” with --implement the following functions--.
Claims 9-14 each contain the same deficiency are therefore objected to for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyes et al. (U.S. Patent Number 9,596,073) and Malek (U.S. Patent Number 7,921,317).
Regarding Claim 1, Reyes discloses a synchronization method, applied to a client (Figure 3A, item 104 with 136, Column 5, lines 40-42; i.e., the atomic clock 136 corresponds to the measured sensor 102b [Figure 1], which may be integrated with the PTFE 104, based on the fact that both components transmit the clock signals 106b and 108b to the PTFE 104), the method comprising:
periodically acquiring synchronization information (Figure 1, item 108b, Column 6, lines 9-25; i.e., the clock signal 108b acts as synchronization information because the NCO 118 uses that information to synchronize the two clocks 102a and 102b) between the client and a server (Figure 1, item 102a/Figure 3A, item 134, Column 5, lines 32-37 and Column 8, lines 4-9; i.e., the GNSS 134 [the “server”] corresponds to the reference sensor 102a [Figure 1] based on the fact that both components transmit the clock signals 106a and 108a to the PTFE 104);
selecting a preset number of sample data from the synchronization information (Figure 2A, item 116, Column 6, lines 9-12; i.e., the sampling subsystem 116 appears to select all of the received clock signal 108b samples in order to determine the frequency and time difference);
predicting a time offset prediction value and a frequency offset prediction value at time Tn by means of substituting the sample data into a preset formula (Column 10, lines 36-41; i.e., the reference does not explicitly state that the prediction is based on substituting the sample data into a preset formula, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a formula for the purpose of providing a simple, deterministic mechanism to determine the future time and frequency offsets; further, the use of a numerically controlled oscillator 118 [Column 14, lines 11-18] in making the prediction would also indicate use of a formula); and
restoring a current frequency and time of the client according to the time offset prediction value and the frequency offset prediction value when a synchronization source is lost (Column 8, lines 1-17 and 26-39, Column 10, lines 36-41; i.e., a current frequency and time of the atomic clock 136 within the client is restored based on a predicted future frequency and time offset; further, this restoration occurs when the signal from the GNSS 134 [the “server”] is lost).
Reyes does not expressly disclose recording time Tc required by a CPU to process the sample data;
wherein the time offset prediction is also based on the time Tc.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., clock synchronization techniques), Malek teaches recording time Tc required by a CPU to process the sample data (Figure 5, item 506, Column 5, lines 3-6; i.e., the offset registers record the time [“Tc”] required by the CPU 104a [Figure 1] to process counter updates [the “sample data”] received from the synchronization device 102 [see Column 4, lines 35-42]);
wherein the time offset prediction (Column 4, lines 39-50; i.e., a time offset estimation) is also based on the time Tc (Column 1, lines 43-55; i.e., the time offset estimation/prediction takes into account the delay of the CPU processing the counter updates).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Malek’s teachings of clock synchronization techniques with the teachings of Reyes, for the purpose of providing a more accurate time within the client since it takes into account the delay introduced by the CPU processing the sampled data.
Regarding Claim 8, Reyes discloses a client (Figure 3A, item 104 with 136, Column 5, lines 40-42; i.e., the atomic clock 136 corresponds to the measured sensor 102b [Figure 1], which may be integrated with the PTFE 104, based on the fact that both components transmit the clock signals 106b and 108b to the PTFE 104), which includes a memory (i.e., a memory would be inherent in the system in order to execute the operations described in, e.g., Claims 14-20 of the reference), a processor (i.e., a processor would necessarily need to be present in order to execute the synchronization program described in, e.g., Claims 14-20, of the reference), and a synchronization program (Claims 14-20) stored in the memory and operable on the processor, wherein the synchronization program is executed by the processor to implement following functions:
periodically acquiring synchronization information (Figure 1, item 108b, Column 6, lines 9-25; i.e., the clock signal 108b acts as synchronization information because the NCO 118 uses that information to synchronize the two clocks 102a and 102b) between the client and a server (Figure 1, item 102a/Figure 3A, item 134, Column 5, lines 32-37 and Column 8, lines 4-9; i.e., the GNSS 134 [the “server”] corresponds to the reference sensor 102a [Figure 1] based on the fact that both components transmit the clock signals 106a and 108a to the PTFE 104);
selecting a preset number of sample data from the synchronization information (Figure 2A, item 116, Column 6, lines 9-12; i.e., the sampling subsystem 116 appears to select all of the received clock signal 108b samples in order to determine the frequency and time difference);
predicting a time offset prediction value and a frequency offset prediction value at time Tn by means of substituting the sample data into a preset formula (Column 10, lines 36-41; i.e., the reference does not explicitly state that the prediction is based on substituting the sample data into a preset formula, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a formula for the purpose of providing a simple, deterministic mechanism to determine the future time and frequency offsets; further, the use of a numerically controlled oscillator [Column 14, lines 11-18] in making the prediction would also indicate use of a formula); and
restoring a current frequency and time of the client according to the time offset prediction value and the frequency offset prediction value when a synchronization source is lost (Column 8, lines 1-17 and 26-39, Column 10, lines 36-41; i.e., a current frequency and time of the atomic clock 136 within the client is restored based on a predicted future frequency and time offset; further, this restoration occurs when the signal from the GNSS 134 [the “server”] is lost).
Reyes does not expressly disclose recording time Tc required by a CPU to process the sample data;
wherein the time offset prediction is also based on the time Tc.
In the same field of endeavor, Malek teaches recording time Tc required by a CPU to process the sample data (Figure 5, item 506, Column 5, lines 3-6; i.e., the offset registers record the time [“Tc”] required by the CPU 104a [Figure 1] to process counter updates [the “sample data”] received from the synchronization device 102 [see Column 4, lines 35-42]);
wherein the time offset prediction (Column 4, lines 39-50; i.e., a time offset estimation) is also based on the time Tc (Column 1, lines 43-55; i.e., the time offset estimation/prediction takes into account the delay of the CPU processing the counter updates).
The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 1 applies equally as well to Claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 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. In the case of Claim 14, the § 112 rejection discussed above would also need to be addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein predicting a time offset prediction value and a frequency offset prediction value at time Tn by means of substituting the sample data into a preset formula comprises:
performing a first weighted average calculation on the sample data according to a formula Sn=a*yn+(1-a)*Sn-1 to obtain the time offset prediction value and the frequency offset prediction value at the time Tn; and
performing a second weighted average calculation according to a formula Sn´=a*Sn+(1-a)*Sn-1´on the time offset prediction value and the frequency offset prediction value obtained by the first weighted average calculation, and regarding values obtained by the second weighted average calculation as a final time offset prediction value and a final frequency offset prediction value at the time Tn,
wherein, when the preset formula is calculated for the time offset prediction value, S0 is an average value of time offset values in n sample data, Sn is the time offset prediction value at the time Tn obtained by the first weighted average calculation, in nanoseconds, a is a weighting coefficient value, which is a constant, yn is a time offset value in the sample data at the time Tn, Sn´ is the time offset prediction value at the time Tn obtained by the second weighted average calculation, in nanoseconds; and when the preset formula is calculated for the frequency offset prediction value, S0 is an average value of frequency offset values in n sample data, Sn is the frequency offset prediction value at the time Tn obtained by the first weighted average calculation, a is the weighting coefficient value, which is a constant, yn is a frequency offset value in the sample data at the time Tn, Sn´ is the frequency offset prediction value at the time Tn obtained by the second weighted average calculation, in nanoseconds.”
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein when predicting a time offset prediction value and a frequency offset prediction value at time Tn by means of substituting the sample data into a preset formula, the synchronization program is further executed by the processor to implement following functions:
performing a first weighted average calculation on the sample data according to a formula Sn=a*yn+(1-a)*Sn-1 to obtain the time offset prediction value and the frequency offset prediction value at the time Tn; and
performing a second weighted average calculation according to a formula Sn´=a*Sn+(1-a)*Sn-1´on the time offset prediction value and the frequency offset prediction value obtained by the first weighted average calculation, and regarding values obtained by the second weighted average calculation as a final time offset prediction value and a final frequency offset prediction value at the time Tn,
wherein, when the preset formula is calculated for the time offset prediction value, S0 is an average value of time offset values in n sample data, Sn is the time offset prediction value at the time Tn obtained by the first weighted average calculation, in nanoseconds, a is a weighting coefficient value, which is a constant, yn is a time offset value in the sample data at the time Tn, Sn´ is the time offset prediction value at the time Tn obtained by the second weighted average calculation, in nanoseconds; and when the preset formula is calculated for the frequency offset prediction value, S0 is an average value of frequency offset values in n sample data, Sn is the frequency offset prediction value at the time Tn obtained by the first weighted average calculation, a is the weighting coefficient value, which is a constant, yn is a frequency offset value in the sample data at the time Tn, Sn´ is the frequency offset prediction value at the time Tn obtained by the second weighted average calculation, in nanoseconds.”
All claims that are not specifically addressed are allowable due to a dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a method for synchronizing a client and server using time and frequency offset values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175