DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see s 7-10, filed 6/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) s 1-20 under Rao through 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li (US Patent 7,652,983). The arguments were made in regards the amendment overcoming Rao, however, the examiner believes that the amendments could be address by Rao in combination with Li, such that the arguments are moot on the grounds of this new rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 is dependent upon claim 9, such that claim 7 is dependent upon a claim that follows rather than a preceding claim. Claim 8 is dependent upon claim 7 such that it inherent this issue. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-9, 12, 13, 16-18, and 20 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.
Re claim 4, which dependent upon claim 1, additionally recites “wherein when the capacity change mode is not a MODE1 mode, the node performs the network operations without performing the first checking, the second checking, and the raising”. However, claim 1, from which it dependent, requires these steps such that it is confusing as to whether or not the claim scope requires these steps, and to the ambiguity of the claims being required, being required within on scenario and not in another, the claims are rendered indefinite.
Re claim 5, this claim is dependent upon claim 4, and suffers from the 112(b) issues previously stated. Additionally, the claim recites “checking an OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter, wherein when the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter is a NONE value, the node performs the network operations without performing the second checking and the raising.”
The amendment of “the node performs the network operations without performing the second checking and the raising”, which were steps that were previously required by claim 1, which claim 5 is dependent, such that the claims scope is confusing as to whether or not the claims requires these steps. The ambiguity of whether these limitations are required in certain scenarios and not another, as well as being understood as being previously required and no longer required is what makes the claims indefinite.
Re claim 7, the claim is dependent upon claim 9 and inherent the issues previously disclosed Additionally recites: “checking for the failure on an originating node or a terminating node on the current working route responsive to the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter set to an OPTIMIZE setting; and
logging error details in sub network connection diagnostics, wherein the alarm is raised responsive to the failure occurring on the originating node or the terminating node.”
However, the claim seems to requires the failure of the system to be detected, such that these limitations would not be taking place if “the first checking to determine an inability whether each node along the current working route can be communicated and execute a cross connect deletion request” happens and the inability is detection without regard to the failure not being detected, or in a scenario wherein the first checking does not detect the inability or a failure on the working route, then the limitations present within this claim does not take place, such that then there are no limitations within the dependent claim, such that in that situation, such that due to the fact that the limitations are conditional, they render the claim scope indefinite as to whether or not anything is performed.
Re claim 8, the claim is dependent upon claim 7 and therefore inherits the issues previously recited. The dependent claim additionally recites “wherein the operations further comprise escalating a capacity change mode to aMODE2 mode responsive to no failure occurring on the originating node and the terminating node”, wherein the limitations are response to the no failure occurring on the originate node and the terminating node”, such that in a situations where these conditions haven’t been meet, such that in that situation, such that due to the fact that the limitations are conditional, they render the claim scope indefinite as to whether or not anything is performed.
Re claim 9, these claims are dependent upon claim 5, such that they inherent the issues previously disclosed. The dependent claim additionally recite ““wherein when the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter is a DENY value, the node denies the network operations and raises the alarm” However, the denying or not performing of network operations and raising of an alarm is performed by the last step when there is a failure detected or the inability to perform cross connection deletion is detected, such that it is unclear whether these steps are to be performed when they have been performed or rather it is requiring the sicario of which no failure and the inability is not detected. Hence, the claim scope is confusing or indefinite.
Re claim 12, the claim is dependent upon claim 10, and additionally recites “the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise:
checking a capacity change mode,
wherein when the capacity change mode is not a MODE1 mode, the network operations are performed without performing the first checking, the second checking and the raising. However, claim 1, from which it dependent, requires these steps such that it is confusing as to whether or not the claim scope requires these steps, and to the ambiguity of the claims being required, being required within on scenario and not in another, the claims are rendered indefinite.
Re claim 13, the claim is dependent upon claim 10 and additionally recites “wherein the checking the nodes results in not detecting the failure and wherein the operations further comprise:
checking an OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter
wherein the network operations are initiated responsive to the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter being set to a NONE value and wherein the network operations are performed without performing the second checking and the raising.
The amendment of “the node performs the network operations without performing the second checking and the raising”, which were steps that were previously required by claim 1, which claim 5 is dependent, such that the claims scope is confusing as to whether or not the claims requires these steps. The ambiguity of whether these limitations are required in certain scenarios and not another, as well as being understood as being previously required and no longer required is what makes the claims indefinite.
Re claim 15, the claim is dependent upon claim 13 and inherits the issues previously stated. Additionally, the claim recites:
“checking for the failure on an originating node or a terminating node on the current working route responsive to an OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter set to an OPTIMIZE setting; and
logging error details in sub network connection diagnostics and initiating the raising the alarm responsive to the failure occurring on the originating node or the terminating node. “However, the claim seems to requires the failure of the system to be detected, such that these limitations would not be taking place if “the first checking to determine an inability whether each node along the current working route can be communicated and execute a cross connect deletion request” happens and the inability is detection without regard to the failure not being detected, or in a scenario wherein the first checking does not detect the inability or a failure on the working route, then the limitations present within this claim does not take place, such that then there are no limitations within the dependent claim, such that in that situation, the claim becomes indefinite.
Re claim 16, the claim is dependent upon claim 15 and suffers from the issues previously stated. Additionally, the claim states, “wherein the operations further comprise escalating a capacity change mode to aMODE2mode and performing the network operations responsive to the failure not occurring on an originating node or a terminating node”, wherein the limitations are response to the no failure occurring on the originate node and the terminating node”, such that in a situations where these conditions haven’t been meet, nothing is performed such that the claim the claim becomes indefinite.
Re claim 17, the claim is dependent upon claim 13 and suffers from the issues previously stated. Additionally, the claim states “wherein when the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter is a DENY value, the node denies the network operations and raises the alarm”. While also inheriting all the previously issues stated, the limitation of “denies the network operation and raises the alarm”, claim 10 from which this claim recites “in response to detecting the failure or the inability (i) raising an alarm indicating an issues and a status along the current working route of a sub network connection, otherwise (ii) performing network operations to switch the current working route associated with the indication”, such that in the scenario wherein the first or second checking results in the inability to execute a cross connect deletion request or a failure in a current working route would result in the raising of the alarm and not performing network operations, such that in this situation, there is additional steps being performed such that the claim scope is indefinite. If it was the situations where failure is not detected or the inability to perform cross connection deletion is not detected, then the system is performing the steps regardless such that the original limitation within claim 10 is not performed and further confuses the claim scope becoming indefinite.
Re claim 20, the claim is dependent upon claim 19, which claim 20 is dependent. The claim additionally recites “further comprising:
checking, by the processing system, a capacity change mode;
checking, by the processing system, an OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter;
logging, by the processing system, error details in sub network connection diagnostics when raising the alarm; and
escalating, by the processing system, the capacity change mode to a MODE2 mode responsive to the failure not occurring on the originating node or the terminating node of the current working route.”
However, steps like “logging, by the processing system, error details in sub network connection diagnostics when raising the alarm” and “escalating, by the processing system, the capacity change mode of a MODE2 mode response to the failure not occurring on the originating node or the terminating node of the current working route” such that these limitation seem to require a failure that results in an alarm, such that if not failure is detected, these steps would no longer being required by the claim scope, changing the claim scope from one situation to another, resulting in the claim scope being confusing and indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Re claim 4, the claim is dependent upon claim 1 and additionally recites:
“checking a capacity change mode,
wherein when the capacity change mode is not a MODE1 mode, the node performs the network operations without performing the first checking, the second checking and the raising.”
The limitation of “the node performs the network operations without performing the first checking, the second checking, and the raising” is a limitation that removes previous steps that are required by the claim scope of claim 1, such that these claims fail to further limit the claims from which they depend from as they are removing steps that were previously required by the claim scope.
Re claim 5, the claim is dependent upon claim 4, and suffers from the issues previously disclosed. Additionally recites “checking an OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter, wherein when the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter is a NONE value, the node performs the network operations without performing the second checking and the raising.”
The limitation of “wherein when the OPTIMIZATION parameter is a NONE value, the node performs the network operations without performing the second checking and the raising”, removes acts that were previously required by the claim scope of claim 1, which does not further limit the claim. Additionally, claim 4 and 5 both remove steps, such as if claim 4 removes these steps, does claim 5 additionally further limit in the scenario that removes “performing the first checking, the second checking and the raising”, such that if these steps are removed, then they cannot be removed twice.
Re claim 7, the claim is dependent upon claim 9 and inherent the issues previously disclosed Additionally recites: “checking for the failure on an originating node or a terminating node on the current working route responsive to the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter set to an OPTIMIZE setting; and
logging error details in sub network connection diagnostics, wherein the alarm is raised responsive to the failure occurring on the originating node or the terminating node.”
However, the claim seems to requires the failure of the system to be detected, such that these limitations would not be taking place if “the first checking to determine an inability whether each node along the current working route can be communicated and execute a cross connect deletion request” happens and the inability is detection without regard to the failure not being detected, or in a scenario wherein the first checking does not detect the inability or a failure on the working route, then the limitations present within this claim does not take place, such that then there are no limitations within the dependent claim, such that in that situation, the claims from which it depends are further limited.
Re claim 8, the claim is dependent upon claim 7 and therefore inherits the issues previously recited. The dependent claim additionally recites “wherein the operations further comprise escalating a capacity change mode to aMODE2 mode responsive to no failure occurring on the originating node and the terminating node”, wherein the limitations are response to the no failure occurring on the originate node and the terminating node”, such that in a situations where these conditions haven’t been meet, nothing is performed such that the claim from which it depends is not further limited.
Re claim 9, the claim is dependent upon claim 5, and additionally recites “wherein when the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter is a DENY value, the node denies the network operations and raises the alarm”. While also inheriting all the previously issues stated, the limitation of “denies the network operation and raises the alarm”, claim 1 from which this claim recites “in response to detecting the failure or the inability (i) raising an alarm indicating an issues and a status along the current working route of a sub network connection, otherwise (ii) performing network operations to switch the current working route associated with the indication”, such that in the scenario wherein the first or second checking results in the inability to execute a cross connect deletion request or a failure in a current working route would result in the raising of the alarm and not performing network operations, such that in this situation, there is no further limiting of the claim as these steps have already been performed.
Re claim 12, the claim is dependent upon claim 10 and additionally recites “wherein the operations further comprise:
checking a capacity change mode,
wherein when the capacity change mode is set to aMODE1mode, the network operations are performed without performing the first checking, the second checking and the raising.”
The limitation of “the node performs the network operations without performing the first checking, the second checking, and the raising” is a limitation that removes previous steps that are required by the claim scope of claim 10, such that these claims fail to further limit the claims from which they depend from as they are removing steps that were previously required by the claim scope.
Re claim 13, the claim is dependent upon claim 10 and additionally recite “wherein the checking the nodes results in not detecting the failure and wherein the operations further comprise:
checking an OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter
wherein the network operations are initiated responsive to the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter being set to a NONE value and wherein the network operations are performed without performing the second checking and the raising.”
The limitation of “wherein when the OPTIMIZATION parameter is a NONE value, the node performs the network operations without performing the second checking and the raising”, removes acts that were previously required by the claim scope of claim 1, which does not further limit the claim.
Re claim 15, the claim is dependent upon claim 13 and inherits the issues previously stated. Additionally, the claim recites:
“checking for the failure on an originating node or a terminating node on the current working route responsive to an OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter set to an OPTIMIZE setting; and
logging error details in sub network connection diagnostics and initiating the raising the alarm responsive to the failure occurring on the originating node or the terminating node.”
However, the claim seems to requires the failure of the system to be detected, such that these limitations would not be taking place if “the first checking to determine an inability whether each node along the current working route can be communicated and execute a cross connect deletion request” happens and the inability is detection without regard to the failure not being detected, or in a scenario wherein the first checking does not detect the inability or a failure on the working route, then the limitations present within this claim does not take place, such that then there are no limitations within the dependent claim, such that in that situation, the claims from which it depends are further limited.
Re claim 16, the claim is dependent upon claim 15 and suffers from the issues previously stated. Additionally, the claim states, “wherein the operations further comprise escalating a capacity change mode to aMODE2mode and performing the network operations responsive to the failure not occurring on an originating node or a terminating node”, wherein the limitations are response to the no failure occurring on the originate node and the terminating node”, such that in a situations where these conditions haven’t been meet, nothing is performed such that the claim from which it depends is not further limited.
Re claim 17, the claim is dependent upon claim 13 and suffers from the issues previously stated. Additionally, the claim states “wherein when the OPTIMIZATIONMODE parameter is a DENY value, the node denies the network operations and raises the alarm”. While also inheriting all the previously issues stated, the limitation of “denies the network operation and raises the alarm”, claim 10 from which this claim recites “in response to detecting the failure or the inability (i) raising an alarm indicating an issues and a status along the current working route of a sub network connection, otherwise (ii) performing network operations to switch the current working route associated with the indication”, such that in the scenario wherein the first or second checking results in the inability to execute a cross connect deletion request or a failure in a current working route would result in the raising of the alarm and not performing network operations, such that in this situation, there is no further limiting of the claim as these steps have already been performed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10,11, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al (herein Rao) US PG PUB 2017/0338887 and Li et al (herein Li) US PG PUB 7,652,983.
Re claim 1, Rao discloses a fiber optic network (the system is drawn towards the optical communication system with multiple nodes or stops along said path), the node comprising a processing system including a processor and executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
receiving an indication of an auto-reversion or a manual operation to switch a current working route following fault recovery (after a wait to restore (WTR) time expire but before reverting back to the working path, the POSM 400 may request the ROADM card 420 to re-evaluate this SCH OPR LOW alarm condition ¶ [0064]);
checking the nodes in the current working route for a failure (SCH OPR LOW is resulting of optical power message 422 of the ROADM card. The SCH OPR LOW condition is determined based on the OPM scan in the demultiplexing direction perform by the ROADM card ¶ [0061], wherein the SCH OPR LOW alarm may be able to be detected law lop degradation of the system ¶ [0062], such that the system determines if there is a potential failure); and
in response: to detecting the failure or the inability, (i) raising an alarm indicating an issue and a status along the current working route of a sub network connection, otherwise (ii) performing network operations to switch the current working route associated with the indication (when this alarm condition comes on the working path, the OPSM 400 may determine not to switch back to the working path because traffic maybe not recovered possibly due to the last hop degradation ¶ [0064], such that the system could raise the SCH OPR LOW alarm is present due to a detection of failure along the path).
However, Rao does not explicitly disclose multiple checking steps such that there is also another step of checking to determine an ability whether each node along the current working route can communicate and execute a cross connection deletion request. However, Li discloses at step 501, it is preferable that the service path by verified after repair. At step 502, the source node commences the process by "bridging" the customer signal onto both the service and restoration paths (the "bridge" function sends the customer input signal to both paths). Once the bridge process has completed, at step 503, the source node sends a Notification message to the destination, requesting that the destination "bridge and roll" the service and restoration paths (the "roll" function switches the signal sent to the customer from restoration path to service path). In this case, the "roll" function causes the destination to select the service path signal at step 504. Upon finishing the bridge and roll at the destination, at step 505, the destination sends a Notification message to the source confirming the completion of the bridge and roll operation. When the source receives this Notification, at step 506, it stops transmitting traffic along the restoration path, and, at step 507, sends another Notification message to the destination confirming that the LSP is normalized. Once the destination receives this Notification message, at step 508, it issues a RESVTEAR message along the restoration path and stops transmitting along the restoration path at steps 508-509. The RESVTEAR message informs the nodes along the restoration path to release the restoration resources if shared restoration is used for this LSP. This procedure achieves the "make-before-break" feature, that is, minimal service traffic interruption during the normalization process. Note that the RESVTEAR removes the cross-connection for the restoration path (and frees the resources to be used for restoring other failures), but does not delete the local state along the restoration path, Col 9, line 33-63, such that the system disclose the transmission confirmation of a bride and roll between the nodes along said path to communicate along the service path, which is interpreted as the confirmation of the checking or confirming the ability along the route to communicate and results in the destination node issues a RESVTEAR message along restoration path, which is the cross connection deletion requestion, specifically the notification message confirming the bridge and roll.
Additionally, the combination of Rao and Li would disclose otherwise performing networking operations to switch the current working route associate within the indication (the service path by verified after repair, step 501 of Li, such that the main path is verified for no failure, hence, after repair, and performs the “bridge and roll” such that the upon finishing the bridge and roll at the destination at 505, the destination sends a Notification message to the source confirming the completion of the bridge and roll operation and when the source receives this notification, at step 506, it stop transmitting traffic along the restoration path and sending another notification message to the destination confirming that the LSP is normalized Col. 9, lines 33-63).
Rao and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor¸ operations within an optical network concerning paths. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rao and Li before him or her, to modify the steps of determining when to switch paths of Rao to include the additional steps of bridge and roll of Li because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enables the system to additionally check the communication along the paths before removing or changing the route.
Re claim 2, Rao and Li disclose all the elements of claim 1, which claim 2 is dependent. Furthermore, Rao discloses, wherein the alarm comprises an "SNC E2E Control Path not UP" alarm (the optical power status message 306 may include an Optical Power Received (OPR) low alarm status and an OPR unreliable alarm status ¶ [0049], such that a low alarm is such that the optical power received is low which is an indication that signals are not being transmitted across it and that the path is not up), and wherein the indication of the auto-reversion comprises a protect route validation timer expiring or a wait to revert timer expiring (after a wait to restore (WTR) time expire but before reverting back to the working path, the POSM 400 may request the ROADM card 420 to re-evaluate this SCH OPR LOW alarm condition ¶ [0064], such that the request is in response to the WTR time expiring).
Re claim 3, Rao and Li discloses all the elements of claim 1, which claim 3 is dependent. Furthermore, Rao discloses wherein the failure comprises a node block, an upgrade in progress on any of the nodes in the current working route, a local shelf sync issues, a comms failure (the SCH POR LOW alarm condition is an optical power status message which means that the super-channel optical power received is low ¶ [0061], such that the low amount of signals could result in a communication failure if the signals is too low to be communicated. It is disclosed that when this alarm condition comes on the work path, the OPSM 400 may determine not to switch back to the working path. The motivation here may be that the traffic may be recovered ¶ [0064], such that the inability to recover the signals is a comms failure), a domain optical controller out of service, or any combination thereof.
Re claim 10, Rao discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations (The methods and flow charts provided herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for execution by a general purpose computer or a processor. ¶ [0122]), the operations comprising:
obtaining an indication of an auto-reversion or a manual operation to switch a current working route following fault recovery (after a wait to restore (WTF) time expire but before reverting back to the working path, the POSM 400 may request the ROADM card 420 to re-evaluate this SCH OPR LOW alarm condition ¶ [0064], wherein the request is an indication of auto-reversion at it is tied to the wait to restore time);
checking the nodes in the current working route for a failure (SCH OPR LOW is a resulting of optical power message 422 of the ROADM card. The SCH OPR LOW condition is determined based on the OPM scan in the dem-multiplexing direction perform by the ROADM card ¶ [0061], wherein the SCH OPR LOW alarm may be able to detected law lop degradation of the system ¶ [0062], such that it is determining if there is a potential failure); and
implementing one of: (i) raising an alarm responsive to detecting the failure or the inability (when this alarm condition comes on the working path, the OPSM 400 may determine not to switch back to the working path because traffic maybe not recovered possibly due to the last hop degradation ¶ [0064], such that the system could raise the SCH OPR LOW alarm is present due to a detection of failure along path), or (ii) performing network operations responsive to not detecting the failure and the inability.
Rao does not explicitly disclose checking to determine an inability whether nodes in the current working route of a fiber optic network can communicate and execute a cross connect deletion request. However, Li discloses at step 501, it is preferable that the service path by verified after repair. At step 502, the source node commences the process by "bridging" the customer signal onto both the service and restoration paths (the "bridge" function sends the customer input signal to both paths). Once the bridge process has completed, at step 503, the source node sends a Notification message to the destination, requesting that the destination "bridge and roll" the service and restoration paths (the "roll" function switches the signal sent to the customer from restoration path to service path). In this case, the "roll" function causes the destination to select the service path signal at step 504. Upon finishing the bridge and roll at the destination, at step 505, the destination sends a Notification message to the source confirming the completion of the bridge and roll operation. When the source receives this Notification, at step 506, it stops transmitting traffic along the restoration path, and, at step 507, sends another Notification message to the destination confirming that the LSP is normalized. Once the destination receives this Notification message, at step 508, it issues a RESVTEAR message along the restoration path and stops transmitting along the restoration path at steps 508-509. The RESVTEAR message informs the nodes along the restoration path to release the restoration resources if shared restoration is used for this LSP. This procedure achieves the "make-before-break" feature, that is, minimal service traffic interruption during the normalization process. Note that the RESVTEAR removes the cross-connection for the restoration path (and frees the resources to be used for restoring other failures), but does not delete the local state along the restoration path, Col 9, line 33-63, such that the system disclose the transmission confirmation of a bride and roll between the nodes along said path to communicate along the service path, which is interpreted as the confirmation of the checking or confirming the ability along the route to communicate and results in the destination node issues a RESVTEAR message along restoration path, which is the cross connection deletion requestion, specifically the notification message confirming the bridge and roll.
Additionally, the combination of Rao and Li would disclose otherwise performing networking operations to switch the current working route associate within the indication (the service path by verified after repair, step 501 of Li, such that the main path is verified for no failure, hence, after repair, and performs the “bridge and roll” such that the upon finishing the bridge and roll at the destination at 505, the destination sends a Notification message to the source confirming the completion of the bridge and roll operation and when the source receives this notification, at step 506, it stop transmitting traffic along the restoration path and sending another notification message to the destination confirming that the LSP is normalized Col. 9, lines 33-63).
Rao and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor¸ operations within an optical network concerning paths. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rao and Li before him or her, to modify the steps of determining when to switch paths of Rao to include the additional steps of bridge and roll of Li because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enables the system to additionally check the communication along the paths before removing or changing the route.
Re claim 11, Rao and Li disclose all the elements of claim 10, which claim 11 is dependent. Furthermore, Rao discloses wherein the failure comprises a node block, an upgrade in progress on any of the nodes in the current working route, a local shelf sync issue, a comms failure (the SCH POR LOW alarm condition is an optical power status message which means that the super-channel optical power received is low ¶ [0061], such that the low amount of signals could result in a communication failure if the signal is too low to be communicated. It is disclosed that when this alarm condition comes on the work path, the OPSM 400 may determine not the switch back to the working path. The motivation here may be that the traffic may not be recovered ¶ [0064], which the inability to recovery means a communication failure), a domain optical controller out of service, or any combination thereof.
Re claim 18, Rao discloses all the elements of claim 10, which claim 18 is dependent. Additionally, Rao discloses wherein the indication of the auto-reversion comprises a protect route validation timer expiring or a wait to revert timer expiring (Rao discloses after a wait to restore (WTR) time expire but before reverting back to the working path, the POSM 400 may request the ROADM card 420 to re-evaluate this SCH OPR LOW alarm condition ¶ [0064], such that the wait to restore time is an auto-reversion is the timer).
Re claim 19, Rao discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processing system including a processor (the methods provided maybe implemented in a general purpose computer, a processor, or a processor core ¶ [0120]), an indication of an auto-reversion or a manual operation to switch a current working route following fault recovery (after a wait to restore (WTF) time expire but before reverting back to the working path, the POSM 400 may request the ROADM card 420 to re-evaluate this SCH OPR LOW alarm condition ¶ [0064], wherein the request is an indication of auto-reversion at it is tied to the wait to restore time);
checking, by the processing system, the nodes in the current working route for a failure (SCH OPR LOW is a resulting of optical power message 422 of the ROADM card. The SCH OPR LOW condition is determined based on the OPM scan in the dem-multiplexing direction perform by the ROADM card ¶ [0061], wherein the SCH OPR LOW alarm may be able to detected law lop degradation of the system ¶ [0062], such that it is determining if there is a potential failure); and
implementing one of: raising an alarm, by the processing system, responsive to detecting the failure (when this alarm condition comes on the working path, the OPSM 400 may determine not to switch back to the working path because traffic maybe not recovered possibly due to the last hop degradation ¶ [0064], such that the system could raise the SCH OPR LOW alarm is present due to a detection of failure along path) or the inability, otherwise performing network operations, by the processing system, responsive to not detecting the failure and the inability.
Rao does not explicitly disclose “checking, by the processing system, to determine an inability whether nodes in the current working route of a fiber optic network can communicate and execute a cross connect deletion request”. However, Li discloses at step 501, it is preferable that the service path by verified after repair. At step 502, the source node commences the process by "bridging" the customer signal onto both the service and restoration paths (the "bridge" function sends the customer input signal to both paths). Once the bridge process has completed, at step 503, the source node sends a Notification message to the destination, requesting that the destination "bridge and roll" the service and restoration paths (the "roll" function switches the signal sent to the customer from restoration path to service path). In this case, the "roll" function causes the destination to select the service path signal at step 504. Upon finishing the bridge and roll at the destination, at step 505, the destination sends a Notification message to the source confirming the completion of the bridge and roll operation. When the source receives this Notification, at step 506, it stops transmitting traffic along the restoration path, and, at step 507, sends another Notification message to the destination confirming that the LSP is normalized. Once the destination receives this Notification message, at step 508, it issues a RESVTEAR message along the restoration path and stops transmitting along the restoration path at steps 508-509. The RESVTEAR message informs the nodes along the restoration path to release the restoration resources if shared restoration is used for this LSP. This procedure achieves the "make-before-break" feature, that is, minimal service traffic interruption during the normalization process. Note that the RESVTEAR removes the cross-connection for the restoration path (and frees the resources to be used for restoring other failures), but does not delete the local state along the restoration path, Col 9, line 33-63, such that the system disclose the transmission confirmation of a bride and roll between the nodes along said path to communicate along the service path, which is interpreted as the confirmation of the checking or confirming the ability along the route to communicate and results in the destination node issues a RESVTEAR message along restoration path, which is the cross connection deletion requestion, specifically the notification message confirming the bridge and roll.
Additionally, the combination of Rao and Li would disclose otherwise performing networking operations to switch the current working route associate within the indication (the service path by verified after repair, step 501 of Li, such that the main path is verified for no failure, hence, after repair, and performs the “bridge and roll” such that the upon finishing the bridge and roll at the destination at 505, the destination sends a Notification message to the source confirming the completion of the bridge and roll operation and when the source receives this notification, at step 506, it stop transmitting traffic along the restoration path and sending another notification message to the destination confirming that the LSP is normalized Col. 9, lines 33-63).
Rao and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor¸ operations within an optical network concerning paths. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rao and Li before him or her, to modify the steps of determining when to switch paths of Rao to include the additional steps of bridge and roll of Li because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enables the system to additionally check the communication along the paths before removing or changing the route.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao and Li as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lo et al (herein Lo) US PG PUB 2024/0223439.
Re claim 6, Rao and Li disclose all the elements of claim 1, which claim 6 is dependent. Furthermore, Rao does not explicitly disclose logging error details in sub network connection diagnostics responsive to the detecting or the inability. However, Lo discloses if a first network device is unable to send telemetry data to the WAN assurance system, the first network device may use a designated network device to report diagnostics data (also referred to herein as “critical data” or “distress data”), such as connectivity loss of the first network device to the WAN assurance system. In some examples, the diagnostics data includes connectivity status information indicating: a type of the issue or reason the first network device is unable to communicate with the WAN assurance platform (e.g., due to performance degradation or failure of an interface, a path, a software agent of the first network device, a certificate or security error, etc.); system status of the first network device (e.g., a version of hardware or software of the first network device, resource utilization statistics, etc.); a time the issue occurred; an identification of one or more interfaces of the first network device associated with the issue; and/or critical system events and alarms ¶ [0020].
Rao and Lo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, operation within an optical network that could potentially have failures. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rao and Lo before him or her, to modify the processing system of Rao to include the ability to have diagnostic data pertaining to the loss or failure of Lo because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enabling the system to be aware of the failure and what needs to be dealt with to correct the issue.
Re claim 14, Rao and Li disclose all the elements of claim 10, which claim 14 is dependent. Furthermore, Rao does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: logging error details in sub network connection diagnostics.
However, Lo discloses if a first network device is unable to send telemetry data to the WAN assurance system, the first network device may use a designated network device to report diagnostics data (also referred to herein as “critical data” or “distress data”), such as connectivity loss of the first network device to the WAN assurance system. In some examples, the diagnostics data includes connectivity status information indicating: a type of the issue or reason the first network device is unable to communicate with the WAN assurance platform (e.g., due to performance degradation or failure of an interface, a path, a software agent of the first network device, a certificate or security error, etc.); system status of the first network device (e.g., a version of hardware or software of the first network device, resource utilization statistics, etc.); a time the issue occurred; an identification of one or more interfaces of the first network device associated with the issue; and/or critical system events and alarms ¶ [0020].
Rao and Lo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, operation within an optical network that could potentially have failures. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rao and Lo before him or her, to modify the processing system of Rao to include the ability to have diagnostic data pertaining to the loss or failure of Lo because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enabling the system to be aware of the failure and what needs to be dealt with to correct the issue.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7488. The examiner can normally be reached 9-4.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
TANYA MOTSINGER
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/TANYA T MOTSINGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights