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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/866,540 filed on 17 November 2024. This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/020589 filed on 17 May 2022. The preliminary amendments filed 17 November 2024 amends claim 5 and adds claims 6-12. Claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an identification unit in claim 1 and a determination unit in claim 1, and a notification unit in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For instance, FIG. 11 of Applicant’s Drawings discloses a communication device 10a comprising the identification unit 12, the determination unit 14, and the notification unit 15. Paragraph 0195 discloses that the hardware configuration of the communication devices comprises a processor 21 and ROM 21, RAM 23, and Storage 24.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2018/0205452 A1 to Stephens et al and in view of US PGPUB 2022/0095153 A1 to Ha et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Stephens discloses a communication device that performs time synchronization by transmission and reception of a time synchronization signal in accordance with a single profile among a plurality of profiles, to and from an opposing device that is an opposing communication device (FIG. 2, 0005, and 0036 provides for device 201 performs time synchronization using PTP packets in accordance with a measurement profile of a plurality of measurement profiles), the communication device comprising: an identification unit configured to continuously identify a profile used by the opposing device, on the basis of information regarding the transmission and the reception of the time synchronization signal in accordance with the single profile among the plurality of profiles and a method of the time synchronization included in the time synchronization signal acquired from the opposing device (FIG. 2 and 0036 provides for identifying measurement profiles received using the received signals). Stephens doesn’t explicitly disclose a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the profile used by the opposing device changes, on the basis of a past profile identified by the identification unit and a current profile identified by the identification unit. Ha, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the profile used by the opposing device changes, on the basis of a past profile identified by the identification unit and a current profile identified by the identification unit (FIG. 17, 0126, and 0154 provides for determining whether or not the PTP profile of the UE is lower compared to the existing PTP profile). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Ha for comparing the PTP profiles based on their requirements. The PTP profile comparison of Ha, when implemented with the GMC of the Stephens system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to compare PTP profiles in order to determine a change between PTP profiles for a device. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the PTP profile comparison of Ha with the GMC of the Stephens system for the desirable purpose of synchronizing the devices in a system.
Regarding Claim 2, the Stephens/Ha system discloses the communication device according to claim 1, wherein the identification unit transmits a first time synchronization signal to the opposing device, receives a second time synchronization signal transmitted from the opposing device in response to the first time synchronization signal, and identifies the profile used by the opposing device, on the basis of information included in the received second time synchronization signal (Stephens, FIG. 2 and 0033-0036 provides for sending signals and receiving transmissions from the signal).
Regarding Claim 3, the Stephens/Ha system discloses the communication device according to claim 1, further comprising: a notification unit configured to, when it is determined by the determination unit that the profile used by the opposing device changes, notify outside of occurrence of the change in the profile used by the opposing device (Ha, 0128 provides for after determining the QoS flow, transmitting that information to the UPF). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, the Stephens/Ha system discloses the communication device according to claim 1, wherein when it is determined by the determination unit that the profile used by the opposing device changes, the identification unit performs setting in accordance with the current profile to the communication device (Ha, 0154 provides for when the QoS flow has lower requirement, then the QoS flow is set based on the PTP profile). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, similar rejection where the communication device of claim 1 teaches the communication method of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, similar rejection where the communication device of claim 2 teaches the communication method of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, similar rejection where the communication device of claim 3 teaches the communication method of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, similar rejection where the communication device of claim 4 teaches the communication method of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, similar rejection where the communication device of claim 1 teaches the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, similar rejection where the communication device of claim 2 teaches the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, similar rejection where the communication device of claim 3 teaches the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, similar rejection where the communication device of claim 4 teaches the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium of claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2021/0211786 A1 to Loprieno et al discloses synchronizing a PTP packet exchange between two clocks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHQUITA GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights