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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-14, 16, 18-21, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nokia et al. “Nokia” “Time synchronization – procedure review” published October 2021 (Submitted in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Nokia teaches a method and a node (NEF or TSCTSF which would include a processor/memory) of Figure 4.15.9.3.2-1 and/or 4.15.9.2-1 configured to provide a time synchronization service, the node comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing computer program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: receive a request for time synchronization for a user equipment (UE) or a group of UEs, originated from an application function (AF) (the AF creates a time sync request with respect to UEs and is received by the NEF/TSCTSF (Figure .15.9.3.2-1, Page 7 note 1);
obtain subscription data for the UE or the group of UEs indicating whether the request for time synchronization from the AF is authorized to proceed (UE subscription information is received and used to authorize the request; Page 7 steps 1 and 2);
upon determining the subscription data for the UE or the group of UEs do not authorize the request for time synchronization from the AF, reject the request for time synchronization from the AF (The request may also be rejected based on UE identifies; Page 4, 2nd to last section of step 1); and
proceed with the time synchronization service upon determining the subscription data authorize the request for time synchronization service from the AF (The request is authorized and then synchronization responses are performed; Page 7 steps 2/3).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Nokia teaches the request includes a request for time synchronization with time resiliency service and the subscription data indicates if the request is authorized or not (the time synchronization request includes parameters from table 4.15.9.3.1 (see page 7 note 1). The table on page 6 (and description) discloses a validity condition which can be viewed as the resiliency for example. The request can be authorized or rejected (page 4 2nd to last section of step 1 and page 7 steps 2/3)).
Regarding claims 14 and 21, Nokia teaches the request includes timing resiliency services (the time synchronization request includes parameters from table 4.15.9.3.1 (see page 7 note 1). The table on page 6 (and description) discloses a validity condition and error budget which are related to the services for example. Thus the request includes timing resiliency services as claimed).
Regarding claims 16 and 23, Nokia teaches an indication that the time sync service or time sync with resiliency service is enabled or disabled (Table 4.15.9.4-1 on page 11 shows time distribution indications which can be enabled and disabled).
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Nokia teaches receiving a notification from the AF to disable time syn services and deactivating the service (Table 4.15.9.4-1 includes enable/disable information that cases the activation/deactivation with respect to the UEs. This information is sent from the AF; Page 11 note 3).
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) 15, 17, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia in view of Qiao et al. “Qiao” WO 2023/059615.
Regarding claims 15 and 22, Nokia teaches subscription information is used to authorize or reject requests as shown in claims 12 and 19. Nokia does not disclose sending a request to a UDM to request subscription related data for time resiliency services and receiving the information with respect to authorization; however, Qiao teaches a request is sent to the UDM in order to authenticate (i.e. authorize) a UE. This authentication is with respect to subscription information; Paragraph 142.The teachings of Qiao, as a whole, are with respect to time resiliency services for 5G systems as well as synchronization; Paragraphs 217 and 234. Thus one can see the authentication of a user would be with respect to the time resiliency.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Nokia to include sending a request to a UDM for user authorization as taught by Qiao.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that based on user subscription information, authorization of the UE can be determined by a UDM as taught by Qiao; Paragraph 142.
Regarding claims 17 and 24, While Nokia teaches the subscription information of the UE is associated with time synchronization, Nokia does not disclose subscribing at the UDM node to receive any changes in subscription to the time sync/time sync resiliency information; however, Qiao teaches that the UDM will notify the network of subscription changes with respect to the UE; Paragraph 142. The system is tied to time synchronization and resiliency services; Paragraphs 217 and 234.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Nokia to include receiving updates from the UDM with respect to changes in subscription of the UE as taught by Qiao.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that based on user subscription information, authorization of the UE can be determined by a UDM as taught by Qiao; Paragraph 142.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights