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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1–2 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. No claims have been allowed.
Specification
The specification and claims contain minor typographical errors such as “lcast onc” instead of “at least one”, and “hrough oe or” instead of “through one or”.
Applicant is requested to correct these by amendment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121.
These errors do not render the claims indefinite; therefore, no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is made.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
35 USC § 102(a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
35 USC § 102(a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1–2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chaudhuri et al. (US 7,039,009 B2) (“Chaudhuri”).
As per claim 1
Chaudhuri teaches a system comprising at least one processor “The IP router implements the necessary IP protocols and uses IP for signaling to establish and maintain lightpaths. Specifically, optical resource management requires resourceavailability per link to be propagated, implying link state protocols such as Open Shortest Path First (OSPF). OSPF propagates Link State Advertisements that describe the existence/characteristics of each link. Each router advertises the links associated with itself, and receives advertisements from all other routers. Thus, each router will eventually end up with a representation of the entire network topology. In traditional, IP only OSPF, OSPF also uses a shortest pathalgorithm at each node to calculate the next hop along the route. Because all routers are using the same topology and the same shortest path algorithm, packets will end up at their destination. If a node has the wrong topology, or uses the wrong algorithm, routing loops could occur. For purposes of the present invention, the shortest path routing feature of OSPF is not being used for managing optical connectivity. The present invention uses OSPF or similar IP-based routing protocols to propagate information about optical network resources. An arbitrary algorithm is then used at the first-hop router (e.g., an adaptive routing algorithm) to calculate the lightpath route for each newrequest. While OSPF is assumed, other link state algorithms, for example Intermediate-Systems-to-Intermediate-Systems (IS-IS), may be equally applicable. PNNI is a routing information protocol that enables extremely scaleable, fullfunction dynamic multi-vendor ATM switches to be integrated in the same network.Each network node is connected to other nodes by one or more lightpaths. That is, a node may be connected to one or more other nodes by one or more lightpaths. For example, in FIG. 1, node A is connected to both nodes B and D with two lightpaths. The physical implementation of the lightpath uses either fixed or tunable lasers. On each link within the lightpath groups. Beyond the node local mechanisms, signaling mechanisms to construct optical lightpaths are needed. An Application Progranmiing Interface (API) call to create a path requires at least four parameters including: destination,bandwidth, restoration flag, and a transparency flag. An API network, one channel is assigned as the default routed (one hop) lightpath. The routed lightpath provides router-to- router connectivity between adjacent nodes over this link.These routed lightpaths reflect (and are thus identical to) the physical topology. The assignment of this default-routed lightpath is by convention, e.g. the ‘first’ channel. All traffic using this lightpath is IP traffic and is forwarded by therouter. Multiple fibers using multiple channels on each link are assumed. All control messages are sent in-band on a routed lightpath as regular IP datagrams, potentially mixed with other data but with the highest forwarding priority.Control traffic may use any routed path.”(Col. 7, lines 1–48, US 7,039,009 B2), configured to provision an optical channel extension in an optical network using a provisioned optical data channel Described above herein is how IP algorithms and mechanisms can be used as the basis for a control plane for an optical network. The above illustrates how optical lightpathmanagement, and particularly rapid lightpath provisioning and restoration can be implemented using IP control. Also described herein is the novel Smart Router-Simple Optics (SRSO) network architecture, where each node controls asmart IP router and a simple optical cross-connect. The SRSO architecture leverages growth and innovation in IP and optics to their fullest. That is, the extensions described in the present invention are applicable to both the big router (with OLXC ultra-fast forwarding engine) and optical controlplane (IP used as controller for OLXC). While the present invention is described using IP control of an optical communications network embodiment, it is notdeemed a departure from the spirit and scope of the present invention to apply the fundamental novel concepts to a similarly configured communications network. The present invention may be implemented in hardware, software or firmware as well as Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) or Field Progranimable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) or any other means by which the functions and process disclosed herein can be effectively and efficiently accomplished or any combination thereof. The above means for implementation should not be taken to be exhaustive but merely exemplary and therefore, not limit the means by which the present invention may be practiced.”(Col. 24, lines 24–50, US 7,039,009 B2), and a memory communicatively coupled with the at least one processor and configured to store computer program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, operate to provision the optical channel extension The first-hop router receives a request to create a lightpath from a source. The first-hop router creates a lightpath setup (connection) message and sends it towards the destination of the lightpath where it is received by the last-hop router. If the originator of the request is not the source, the originatortunnels the request to the first-hop router. The lightpath setup is sent from the first-hop router on the default-routed lightpath as the payload of a normal IP packet with router alert.A router alert ensures that the packet is processed by every router in the path. A channel is allocated for the lightpath on the downstream link at every node traversed by the setup message. The identifier of the allocated channel is written to the setup message, which is then sent to the next node along the selected route. If no channel is available on some link, the setup fails, and a message is returned to the first-hop router informing it that the lightpath cannot be established.” (Col. 10, lines 39–54, US 7,039,009 B2).
Accordingly, claim 1 is anticipated by Chaudhuri.
As per claim 2
Chaudhuri teaches that the operation to provision the optical channel extension is based at least in part on one or more network operator inputs to the system. (Col. 7, lines 34–40, US 7,039,009 B2) “… signaling mechanismsto construct optical lightpaths are needed. An Application Progranmiing Interface (API) call to create a path requires at least four parameters including: destination, bandwidth, restoration flag, and a transparency flag.”, and that a first-hop router receives a request to create a lightpath and allocates channels along the route (Col. 10, lines 39–54: “The first-hop router receives a request to create a lightpath 40 from a source. The first-hop router creates a lightpath setup (connection) message and sends it towards the destination of the lightpath where it is received by the last-hop router. … A channel is allocated for the lightpath on the downstream link at every node traversed by the setup message. … If no channel is available on some link, the setup fails, and a message is returned to the first-hop router informing it that the lightpath cannot be established.”).
Thus, Chaudhuri teaches that the provisioning operation is based at least in part on network/operator-supplied inputs (request and API parameters), corresponding to the limitation of claim 2.
Accordingly, claim 2 is anticipated by Chaudhuri under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
In Chaudhuri, the router-based IP control plane acts as the “at least one processor” and the software/firmware/ASIC implementations act as the “memory storing instructions.” The system receives operator/service requests via an API and computes lightpaths by allocating channels across the network. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, such a controller that extends a provisioned optical channel across multiple links based on operator inputs is considered to meet the claimed “provisioning of an optical channel extension in an optical network using a provisioned optical data channel.”
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for the 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), and applied for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
Considering objective evidence indicative of obviousness or non-obviousness, if present.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
2. Claims 1–2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Colbourne (US 8,233,794 B2) in view of Zhu et al. (EP 2 916 475 A1).
As per claim 1
Colbourne teaches a system comprising at least one processor (Col. 2, lines 1–18: “A basic simplified structure of a 1 xN WSS using arrays of adjustable reflectors. The adjustable reflectors may be MEMS mirrors that can be tilted in 1-dimension about one axis, as shown in top view in FIG. la. … In this example according to prior art, a basic simplified wavelength switching module 102A comprises a light redirecting element, such as a spherical reflector 120, used to receive a beam of light comprising wavelength multiplexed signals from a front-end unit 122 and to re-image the beam onto a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) array 126 after reflection off a diffraction grating 124. Due to the optical dispersion of the diffraction grating 124, a separate image is formed on the MEMS mirror array 126 for every wavelength multiplexed signal present in the beam of light.”). This corresponds to an optical network in which optical data channels are selectively routed to egress ports by node hardware.
However, Colbourne does not explicitly teach configured to provision an optical channel extension in an optical network using a provisioned optical data channel (e.g., broadcast or drop-and-continue of the same wavelength to multiple egresses).
Within analogous art, Zhu teaches configured to provision an optical channel extension in an optical network using a provisioned optical data channel like a wavelength-blocker-array (WBA)-based wavelength selective cross-connect (WSX) for ROADMs that explicitly provides broadcast and drop-and-continue functionality, i.e., extending a wavelength channel to multiple egress ports. In particular, paragraphs [0010] and [0011] of EP 2 916 475 A1 state (emphasis added):
“[0010] Particular embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented so as to realize one or more of the following advantages. A wavelength blocker array (WBA) implementation of a wavelength selective cross-connect (WSX) can be less expensive and less bulky than a conventional 1 x N wavelength selective switch based WSX. Additionally, a ROADM using a WBA based WSX is less bulky. The WBA also makes it easier to design devices having a higher port count, which can drive down the cost, e.g., for ROADMs. A WBA based WSX is also able to provide broadcast and drop-and-continue functionality.[0011] A 2 x 2 WSX array based N.K x N.K WSX allows for an N x N WSX to be configured with a simpler structure resulting in lower cost and smaller equipment spacing. The 2 x 2 WSX can be integrated as an array to save cost and space. In some implementations, a 2 x 2 WSX array based N.K x N.K WSX can be designed to provide drop-and-continue functionality. Alternatively, in some other implementations, a 2 x 2 WSX array based WSX can be designed to provide a colorless and directionless add/drop port that provides increased flexibility on add and drop locations.”
Zhu further explains a memory communicatively coupled with the at least one processor and configured to store computer program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, operate to provision the optical channel extension like the drop-and-continue operation of a wavelength channel (EP 2 916 475 A1, [0043]):
“[0043] The N.K x N.K WSX 300 can also provide drop and continue functionality. In particular, a wavelength channel received at a particular ingress splitter 302 can be passed by one or more wavelength blockers in the WBA 304 while also being dropped to a degree drop port. For example, as shown in FIG. 3B, a wavelength channel {ch-2-5) received at the second splitter 326 is routed by a drop branch to the degree drop port as well as passed by the WBA 304 to the first coupler 328.”
And Zhu provides a detailed add/drop example (EP 2 916 475 A1, [0053]):
“[0053] FIG. 4F is a diagram of the example 4.4 x 4.4 WSX 400 of FIG. 4A including example path routing. In particular, FIG. 4F shows an example of add/drop functionality in the WSX 400. In some implementations, a wavelength channel input at a particular ingress tap coupler has a portion of the signal tapped to a port of the degree drop 410. The wavelength channel can then be blocked by the WBA 404 or can be passed by the WBA 404 to provide drop-and-continue. As shown in FIG. 4F, a wavelength channel is received at the first ingress tap coupler 430 (Ch. 1-1). As illustrated by solid path 462, a portion is tapped to the degree drop 410 while the remaining signal of the wavelength channel is blocked by the WBA 404. Additionally, however, the wavelength channel is input from a port of the degree add 412 and routed to the second egress tap coupler 446, as shown by the solid path 464. Thus, the wavelength channel is dropped and then added again.”
These teachings of Zhu correspond to provisioning an optical channel extension in an optical network using a provisioned optical data channel (the same wavelength is dropped and/or continued to additional egress ports).
Thus, as per claim 1, Colbourne teaches the optical network and switching hardware for routing wavelength channels, and Zhu teaches configuring that hardware to perform broadcast and drop-and-continue behaviors that extend a provisioned wavelength channel to additional egresses. It would have been obvious to implement such behaviors under conventional node control electronics (processor and memory storing instructions), yielding a system in which at least one processor, executing instructions stored in memory, provisions an optical channel extension in an optical network using a provisioned optical data channel, as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over Colbourne in view of Zhu.
As per claim 2
Colbourne teaches the operation to provision the optical channel extension in the sense of WSS/ROADM hardware for routing wavelength-multiplexed channels (Col. 2, lines 1–18: “A basic simplified structure of a 1 xN WSS using arrays of adjustable reflectors. The adjustable reflectors may be MEMS mirrors that can be tilted in 1-dimension about one axis, as shown in top view in FIG. 1a. … a basic simplified wavelength switching module 102A comprises a light redirecting element … to receive a beam of light comprising wavelength multiplexed signals … and to re-image the beam onto a … MEMS array after reflection off a diffraction grating 124. Due to the optical dispersion … a separate image is formed … for every wavelength multiplexed signal present in the beam of light.”), but does not explicitly describe operator inputs.
Within analogous art, Zhu teaches that at least in part on one or more network operator inputs to the system like the switching state of each WSX element in the WSX array is explicitly controlled by control signals, implying configuration by a controller that receives higher-level commands (e.g., from a management plane or operator). For example, Zhu states that [0011] A 2 x 2 WSX array based N.K x N.K WSX allows for an N x N WSX to be configured with a simpler structure resulting in lower cost and smaller equipment spacing. The 2 x 2 WSX can be integrated as an array to save cost and space. In some implementations, a 2 x 2 WSX array based N.K x N.K WSX can be designed to provide drop-and-continue functionality. Alternatively, in some other implementations, a 2 x 2 WSX array based WSX can be designed to provide a colorless and directionless add/drop port that provides increased flexibility on add and drop locations.” And Zhu states “[0043] The N.K x N.K WSX 300 can also provide drop and continue functionality. In particular, a wavelength channel received at a particular ingress splitter 302 can be passed by one or more wavelength blockers in the WBA 304 while also being dropped to a degree drop port. For example, as shown in FIG. 3B, a wavelength channel {ch-2-5) received at the second splitter 326 is routed by a drop branch to the degree drop port as well as passed by the WBA 304 to the first coupler 328.” These passages show that Zhu’s WSX elements are configured via control signals from node-level control electronics. In typical ROADM deployments, such control signals are generated in response to service provisioning or reconfiguration requests that originate from a network operator or network-management system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the combined Colbourne/Zhu system with conventional control software that accepts operator or management-plane inputs (such as desired add/drop locations, protection settings, or traffic re-routing commands) and, based on those inputs, sets the WSX switch states (bar / cross) to perform the broadcast and drop-and-continue behaviors of Zhu. Doing so results in an operation to provision an optical channel extension that is “based at least in part on one or more network operator inputs to the system”, as recited in claim 2.
Thus, claim 2 is unpatentable over Colbourne in view of Zhu.
The combination of Colbourne and Zhu represents the predictable use of known optical components and switching behaviors:
Colbourne’s WSS/ROADM hardware is a well-known building block for wavelength-selective routing in optical networks.
Zhu’s WSX/WBA architecture, including broadcast and drop-and-continue functionality, is a known way to add flexibility and support multiple egresses for a single wavelength channel.
It would have been obvious to integrate Zhu’s WSX/WBA behavior into Colbourne’s ROADM/WSS context, under conventional node control electronics (processor + memory), to obtain a system capable of routing a provisioned wavelength both to a local drop port and to an additional egress degree (i.e., an extension) for improved flexibility and resiliency. Providing a controller or network-management system that accepts operator inputs and configures the WSX/WSS hardware accordingly is a routine design choice in the art and would have been obvious. The proposed combination merely uses each reference for its intended purpose to achieve a predictable result an optical system that can perform broadcast and drop-and-continue of a wavelength channel corresponding to the claimed provisioning of an optical channel extension using a provisioned optical data channel.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed Abdelraheem, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday.
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.
/MOHAMMED ABDELRAHEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
/DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635