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
This action is responsive to the communication received April 8th, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14-15, 19-28 have been entered and are presented for examination.
Priority
Application 18/418,915 is a Continuation of PCT/CN2022/101373 06/27/2022 and claims benefit of Chinese Application 202111266392.2 10/28/2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 8th, 2026, have been fully considered, but deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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) 1-2, 5, 9-10, 25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. PCT/CN2020/114421 (as translated by US 20220200722) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20200204499) in view of El Khayat et al. (US 2017/0086247).
Regarding claims 1, 11, Yi et al. discloses a method, implemented by a first communication apparatus serving as a receiving end (see Abstract and Figure 8 [RX, A transmitter sends a first FlexE overhead frame to a receiver, to request active/standby calendar switching. When the receiver is in a restart state, the receiver does not respond to the received first FlexE overhead frame]), the method comprising: sending request information to a second communication apparatus serving as a transmitting end (see Abstract and Figure 8, S303 and paragraphs 0114-0118 [network device 2 sends a FlexE overhead frame 2 to the network device 1; That the network device 1 determines that the FlexE overhead frame 2 is not the response to the request information 1 means that the network device 1 can correctly identify that a received FlexE overhead frame is not a trustworthy response made by the network device 2 to the slot negotiation request 1 sent by the network device ]); and receiving the negotiation request sent by the second communication apparatus (see Figure 8 and paragraphs 0121-0122 [the network device 1 sends a slot negotiation request to the network device 2 again; S307: The network device 2 receives the FlexE overhead frame 3]).
Yi et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the request information requests the second communication apparatus to initiate a negotiation request for switching a flexible Ethernet (FlexE) slot.
However, Zhang et al. suggests wherein the request information requests the second communication apparatus to initiate a negotiation request for switching a flexible Ethernet (FlexE) slot (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 0067,0176-0177 [communications device; the APS protocol request and the indication information may be carried in one FlexE overhead frame; an APS protocol request initiated by a communications device that detects a fault may be transmitted in an entire network]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, the overhead frame of Yi could be used to carry a request when a fault is detected in order to perform a slot negotiation to overcome the fault.
The references as combined above do not explicitly disclose in response to detecting that a fault of a link between a second communication apparatus serving as a transmitting end and the first communication apparatus is recovered, sending request information.
However, El Khayat et al. discloses in response to detecting that a fault of a link between a second communication apparatus serving as a transmitting end and the first communication apparatus is recovered, sending request information (Claim 52 [ detecting recovery from the connection failure and sending the request]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to send a request when a connection has been restored. The motivation is to continue the connection.
Regarding claims 2, the references as combined disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1.
However, the references as combined above further make obvious wherein the request information requests the second communication apparatus to initiate a negotiation request for switching a FlexE Slot table.
Yi et al. discloses in the existing FlexE overhead frame slot negotiation mechanism, when a transmit end sends a slot allocation table switching request (which may alternatively be referred to as a slot negotiation request) to a receive end and the receive end resets for some reasons (for example, a device is powered off, a unicast fault of a related service occurs, or a cold reset on a board is triggered because a fault is rectified), the receive end mistakenly responds, and consequently a service from the transmit end to the receive end is interrupted (paragraph 0004).
Zhang et al. discloses the APS protocol request and the indication information may be carried in one FlexE overhead frame wherein an APS protocol request initiated by a communications device that detects a fault may be transmitted in an entire network (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 0067,0176-0177).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, the overhead frame of Yi could be used to carry a request when a fault is detected in order to perform a slot negotiation to overcome the fault.
Regarding claims 5, the references as combined above make obvious all the recited subject matter in claims 1.
However, Zhang et al. further discloses wherein that the fault of the link is recovered comprises at least one of the following (paragraph 0121 [if the communications device 2303 detects that the fault on the link corresponding to the FlexE group 2401 is rectified]): optical signal jitter of the link disappears; a bit error rate of the link is less than or equal to a bit error rate threshold (); a packet loss rate of the link is less than or equal to a packet loss rate threshold (paragraph 0117 [the communications device may detect an alarm status (including a loss of signal (LOS), a local fault (LF), a high bit error rate (High BER) (where the high bit error rate indicates that most of transmitted bits are error bits), loss locking, and the like) of a FlexE group layer and/or a PHY port; suggesting less threshold when rectified]); or a link layer fault of the link disappears.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize a fault has been rectified when a bit error rate associated with a link or node is below a threshold. The motivation for this is to avoid traffic interruption.
Regarding claims 9, 25, the references as combined above discloses the recited subject matter in claims 1, 2.
However, Zhang et al. further discloses wherein sending the request information to the second communication apparatus comprises: sending a FlexE overhead to the second communication apparatus, wherein the FlexE overhead comprises the request information (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 0067,0176-0177 [communications device; the APS protocol request and the indication information may be carried in one FlexE overhead frame; an APS protocol request initiated by a communications device that detects a fault may be transmitted in an entire network]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, the overhead frame of Yi could be used to carry a request when a fault is detected in order to perform a slot negotiation to overcome the fault.
Regarding claims 10, the references as combined above discloses the recited subject matter in claims 9.
However, Zhang et al. further discloses wherein the FlexE overhead comprises a reserved field, and the reserved field carries the request information (paragraph 0107 [APS protocol request in the reserved bits of overhead]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, the overhead frame of Yi could be used to carry a request when a fault is detected in order to perform a slot negotiation to overcome the fault.
Regarding claim 28, the references as combined above discloses the recited subject matter in claims 1.
However, Zhang et al. further discloses wherein the request is carried in an operation, administration and maintenance (OAM) message (paragraph 0117 [OAM unit]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, the OAM could be used to carry a request when a fault is detected in order to perform a slot negotiation to overcome the fault.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. PCT/CN2020/114421 (as translated by US 2022/0200722) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0204499) in view of El Khayat et al. (US 2017/0086247) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (WO 2021/218231).
Regarding claims 3, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the request information requests the second communication apparatus to initiate a slot negotiation request of a fine granularity service.
However, Chen et al. discloses wherein the request information requests the second communication apparatus to initiate a slot negotiation request of a fine granularity service (pages 8, 9 [Redivide; Further, when the second communication device determines that it is not allowed to implement time slot granularity for time slot division, the time slot negotiation request response message fed back to the first communication device may also carry: time slot granularity support information, The time slot granularity support information may exist in the form of a time slot granularity support list. When the first communication device parses and obtains the time slot granularity support information of the second communication device, it can also prompt the user of the time slot granularity support information, so that the user can perform implementation based on the time slot granularity support information of the second communication device Reconfiguration operation of time slot granularity]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize a request with supported time slot granularities can be sent to the transmitting device in order to setup a granularity that will work for both devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not discloses:
In Claim 11, comparing a flexible Ethernet (FlexE) slot table currently used by the apparatus to a FlexE slot table currently used by a second communication apparatus serving as a transmitting end; and sending a request in response to determining that the FlexE slot table currently used by the apparatus is inconsistent with the FlexE slot table currently used by the second communication apparatus.
In claim 21, 27, receive the negotiation request sent by the second communication apparatus, wherein the negotiation request comprises a mapping relationship between a sub-client identifier (ID) corresponding to each fine granularity service and a sub-slot corresponding to each sub-client ID.
In Claim 26, a value of the one bit being 1 corresponds to initiating a negotiation request for switching a FlexE slot, and a value of the one bit being o corresponds to not initiating a negotiation request for switching a FlexE slot.
Claims 11-12, 14-15, 19-20-24 are allowed based on their dependency of an allowed claim.
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 CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:30 pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights