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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Htay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2017/0104635 A1) in view of Arecco et al. (U.S. Patent 6,804,463 B1), Gert (U.S. Patent 8,948,005 B1) and Shikhmanter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0302152 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 5 a method comprising: providing a measurement schedule to a plurality of network elements, the measurement schedule indicating a predetermined time to sample optical ports of each network element in the plurality of network elements (Htay et al. teaches in paragraph [0048] that the PM analyzer 312 is configured to instruct the data collector 314 to perform periodic (t) PM collection for the equipment assets 020 (TX), 3dc (RX), 6f (RX), ae (RX) to start at T and collect 12×18×t periods); obtaining a plurality of measurement results (see the bottom diagram of FIG. 8) from the plurality of network elements (for example, router 402 and ROAM 3dc, 6f, ae), each particular measurement result of the plurality of measurement results associated with a particular optical port of a particular network element among the plurality of network elements; analyzing the plurality of measurement results to determine one or more direct connections between optical ports on corresponding pairs of network elements among the plurality of network elements (see step 356 of FIG. 5); and providing a notification to at least one administrative device, the notification indicating the one or more direct connections (see step 358 of FIG. 5). The differences between Htay et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Htay et al. does not teach cross-correlating the measurement results to determine direct connection; (b) Htay et al. does not teach synchronizing a system clock with a plurality of clocks each associated with a respective one of a plurality of network elements; and (c) Htay et al. does not teach a sampling frequency.
Arecco et al. teaches in FIG. 4 and col. 4, line 64-col. 5, line 12 cross-correlating the measurement results from two ports and determining whether there is a connection between the two ports. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Arecco et al. with the system of Htay et al. because the cross-correlation method does not require special test pattern and can be done with real payload traffic. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cross-correlation for discovering or verifying direct connections, as taught by Arecco et al., in the system of Htay et al.
The combination of Htay et al. and Arecco et al. still fails to teach synchronizing a system clock with a plurality of clocks each associated with a respective one of a plurality of network elements. Gert teaches topology determination, i.e., the connection among network nodes. Gert teaches in FIG. 6 and col. 11, lines 24-42 that it is important that the clocks of the nodes are synchronized when comparing patterns at different ports for determining connections. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Gert with the modified system of Htay et al. and Arecco et al. because it is important that the clocks of the nodes are synchronized when comparing patterns at different ports for determining connections. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to synchronize the clocks of the nodes, as taught by Gert, in the modified system of Htay et al. and Arecco et al.
The combination of Htay et al., Arecco et al. and Gert still fails to teach a sampling frequency. Shikhmanter et al. teaches in FIG. 11 and FIG. 21 a method for determining the connectivity between an optical router and an IP router. It is understood that the IP router and the optical router belong to different network elements. Shikhmanter et al. teaches in FIG. 21 and paragraph [0204] that the ports are sampled with a sampling frequency of 6 samples per second and the sampled data are correlated for each pair of ports by calculating a cross-correlation to determine a match (i.e., connectivity between the two ports). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Shikhmanter et al. with the modified system of Htay et al., Arecco et al. and Gert because a sample frequency ensures that enough samples are collected for an accurate calculation. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collect measurement at a sampling frequency, as taught by Shikhmanter et al., in the modified system of Htay et al., Arecco et al. and Gert.
Regarding claim 4, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 1 SDN network 10.
Regarding claims 5-6, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 4 controllers between the SDN application server and the network elements for providing the schedule to the network elements and obtaining measurement results.
Regarding claim 7, Htay et al. teaches in paragraph [0048] that the PM analyzer 312 is configured to instruct the data collector 314 to perform periodic (t) PM collection for the equipment assets 020 (TX), 3dc (RX), 6f (RX), ae (RX) to start at T and collect 12×18×t periods, where the starting time T and the period t are parameters.
Regarding claim 8, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 3 network interface 206 and processor 202 and in FIG. 4 and paragraph [0026] that the network interface is communicatively coupled to one or more controllers.
Regarding claim 11, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 1 SDN network 10.
Regarding claims 12-13, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 4 controllers between the SDN application server and the network elements for providing the schedule to the network elements and obtaining measurement results.
Regarding claim 14, Htay et al. teaches in paragraph [0048] that the PM analyzer 312 is configured to instruct the data collector 314 to perform periodic (t) PM collection for the equipment assets 020 (TX), 3dc (RX), 6f (RX), ae (RX) to start at T and collect 12×18×t periods, where the starting time T and the period t are parameters.
Regarding claim 15, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0023] that the processor executes software instructions to implement a process.
Regarding claim 18, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 1 SDN network 10.
Regarding claims 19-20, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 4 controllers between the SDN application server and the network elements for providing the schedule to the network elements and obtaining measurement results.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Htay et al., Arecco et al., Gert and Shikhmanter et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Bakopoulos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0039627 A1).
Htay et al., Arecco et al., Gert and Shikhmanter et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20. The difference between Htay et al., Arecco et al., Gert and Shikhmanter et al. is that Htay et al., Arecco et al., Gert and Shikhmanter et al. do not teach obtaining a list of registered optical ports from the plurality of network elements. Bakopoulos et al. teaches in paragraphs [0047]-[0048] that a management device/module receives information associated with each network devices and generates a network map and/or port map based on the received information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Bakopoulos et al. with the modified system of Htay et al., Arecco et al., Gert and Shikhmanter et al. because Bakopoulos et al. provides details of implementation that are missing from Htay et al., Arecco et al., Gert and Shikhmanter et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain port information from a plurality of network elements, as taught by Bakopoulos et al., in the modified system of Htay et al., Arecco et al., Gert and Shikhmanter et al.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 6 schedule measurement for potential mates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
Arecco is directed to verification of connectivity of an optical system. Specifically, Arecco describes a single device. See Arecco at Col 3: lines 28-43 and FIG. 1. Arecco describes that in the optical system, a threshold number of samples are obtained. However, Arecco does not describe providing information such as "sampling frequency" to obtain the samples.
Gert describes comparing optical pulses between a first device and a second device to determine if a physical connection exists between the devices. See Gert at Abstract. However, Gert does not describe obtaining a plurality of measurement results resulting from sampling of optical ports at a "sampling frequency."
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Shikhmanter et al. teaches in FIG. 21 and paragraph [0204] that the ports are sampled with a sampling frequency of 6 samples per second and the sampled data are correlated for each pair of ports by calculating a cross-correlation to determine a match.
The argument continues:
Second, claim 1 is amended to clarify that the operations of obtaining measurement results and cross-correlating is performed for a plurality of network elements. In particular, claim 1 recites that the optical ports that are found to have a connection may include optical ports that belong to a same network element as well as to different network elements. Htay and Arecco describe a single device, and do not describe a plurality of network elements. Gert describes determining a connection of a first device to a second device but does not describe connection of optical ports between a plurality of network elements.
The argument is not persuasive. Htay et al. teaches in FIG. 6 that the pairs of optical ports belong to a particular element (router 402) and to different network elements among the plurality of network elements (ROADMs). Furthermore, Shikhmanter et al. teaches in FIG. 11 matching ports between the optical router of one city to the IP router of another city.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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.
skl12 January 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635