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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).[AltContent: rect]
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 10-16 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12192316 in view of Grenabo; Hakanet al. US 20140362872. Claims 1-9, 10-16 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12192316 teaches all limitations of the instant application except for “wherein the first device comprises a first boundary clock within the network and the second device comprises a second boundary clock within the network.”; however, Grenabo discloses: (“FIG. 4b depicts an embodiment of the communications network 400 and depicting the upper layer 420 and the lower layer 430, in particular. The upper layer 420 in each of the first device 401 and the second device 405 comprises a TOD clock 435. As exemplified in FIG. 4b, the TOD clock 435 in the first device 401 may be a master clock and the TOD clock 435 in the second device 405 may be a slave clock. The TOD clocks 435 in the upper layer 420 may be a boundary clocks or ordinary clocks.” Grenabo: para. 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine U.S. Patent No. 12192316 with the teachings of Grenabo to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to act as intermediate time source between upstream and downstream clocks.
With respect to claim 1 of the instant application, claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12192316 disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12192316 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application.
With respect to claim 10 of the instant application, claims 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12192316 disclose all the limitations of claim 10. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12192316 teaches all the limitations of claim 10 of the instant application.
With respect to claim 19 of the instant application, claims 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12192316 disclose all the limitations of claim 19. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12192316 teaches all the limitations of claim 19 of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
The invention defined in claims 1, 10 and 19 are not suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 1, 10 and 19 would be allowed if the claims overcome the Double Patenting Rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Reason for allowance
The prior art of record (in particular, Chan; Steve US 20210181787, Goel; Satashu et al. US 20190007151, Wong; Kin-Yee US 20160294545, Grenabo; Hakanet al. US 20140362872, YAMAGUCHI; Tomohisa US-20210167941, DANIELSSON; Magnus et al. US 20240405906, Rotenstein; Sergiu US-20120275501, Bhandari; Shwetha Subray US 20200322075, YAMAGATA; Keisuke US 20240421930 and ZHAO, FAN CN 103763055) singly or in combination does not disclose, with respect to independent claim 1 “receiving a second request from a second device to authenticate that an announcement from the first device is from an authorized primary device;
determining whether the first device is authorized to send the announcement to the second device; and
in response to determining the first device is authorized to send the announcement, sending to the second device a message indicating that the first device is authorized as the primary device and granting permission for the second device to sync clocks with the first device;.” and similar limitations of independent claim 10 in combination with the other claimed features as a whole. and with respect to claim 19 “sending an authentication request to a controller of a network to designate a role of the network device as a primary device in a precision time protocol (PTP);
receiving a grant of authentication from the controller designating the role of the network device as the primary device, wherein the grant of authentication comprises a private key;
sending a secured clock announce message to a second device within the
network;” in combination with the other claimed features as a whole.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 10 and 19 are allowed.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are also allowed based on their dependencies on independent claims 1, 10 and 19.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights