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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, (pre-AIA ) as failing to contain a written description of the invention in clear, concise, and exact terms and/or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph, (pre-AIA ), 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 subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the “processing unit” language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or (pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The limitation(s) is/are interpreted to read on the prior art as explained infra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 follows.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It recites a computer program. Therefore, it is directed to software per se, and consequently is nonstatutory.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims recite comparing data. Other than reciting a communication device comprising a processing unit and a storage unit, the claims are directed to mathematics concepts or nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the aforementioned elements at a high-level of generality, amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Storing characteristics and collecting timestamps are extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As aforementioned regarding the failure to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170026144 (Zinner) in view of US 11945451 (Zeh).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Zinner teaches or suggests a communication device configured to transmit and receive frames, (¶¶ 14, 24-25), the communication device comprising a storage unit, the storage unit storing characteristic information of timestamps included in frames to be received (¶ 24); and
collecting timestamps included in frames received from a specific source, and determining whether the timestamps included in the frames received from the source are normal, by comparing characteristic information of the collected timestamps with the characteristic information of timestamps stored in the storage unit (¶¶ 31, 39).
Zinner does not expressly disclose but Zeh teaches or suggests the communication device comprising a processing unit (3:23-25) and frames generated in accordance with provisions of IEEE 802.lAS (3:4-13). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Zinner’s system and Zeh’s standard in order to achieve sub-microsecond accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Zinner teaches or suggests a plurality of communication ports, wherein the storage unit stores the characteristic information for each communication port (fig. 1, ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 3, Zinner teaches or suggests the storage unit stores two or more types of characteristic information for each communication port (¶¶ 24, 33, 53), and
when the characteristic information of the timestamps collected through one communication port matches all of the two or more types of characteristic information stored for the one communication port, the processing unit determines that the timestamps received through the one communication port are normal (¶¶ 46, 57).
Regarding claim 4, Zinner teaches or suggests the storage unit stores a sequence of numerical values of specific decimal places of timestamps as the characteristic information (¶ 33).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170026144 (Zinner) in view of US 11945451 (Zeh) further in view of US 20030235216 (Gustin).
Zinner does not expressly disclose but Gustin teaches or suggests the characteristic information includes information indicating that numerical values of a last two digits of timestamps are fixed at 00 (¶ 40). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Zinner’s system, Zeh’s standard, and Gustin’s digits in order to send a test message.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170026144 (Zinner) in view of US 11945451 (Zeh) further in view of US 20130007404 (Malcolm).
Zinner does not expressly disclose but Malcolm teaches or suggests the characteristic information includes information indicating that numerical values of a last two digits of timestamps are multiples of 4 (¶ ). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Zinner’s system, Zeh’s standard, and Malcolm’s digits for debugging.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170026144 (Zinner) in view of US 11945451 (Zeh) further in view of US 20070038649 (Agrawal).
Zinner does not expressly disclose but Agrawal teaches or suggests the storage unit stores a sequence of numerical values of specific decimal places of timestamps as the characteristic information (¶ 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Zinner’s system, Zeh’s standard, and Agrawal’s decimal places in order to achieve a desired precision.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, JP-2019110410-A realizes a time stamp accuracy of microsecond RMS or less by a hardware time stamp function.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office action containing amended or newly presented claims should specifically point out support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571) 272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights