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) 1-8, 11-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hathorn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2014/0055776 A1) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0174754 A1) and Sloop et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0160941 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a computer program product for facilitating processing within a computing environment, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media (storage medium 1310) and program instructions (Hathorn et al. teaches in paragraph [0031] program code stored in computer-readable medium) collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions collectively stored comprising: program instructions to obtain, by a receiving network device (channel adapter 200), a command built to enable a control program of a device coupled to the receiving network device to request optical power data of one or more components of one or more network devices (Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 4 a request command), the command including an indication of the one or more components for which the optical power data is to be obtained (FIG. 4 teaches that bytes 0-2 contain the port ID for which optical power data is to be obtained); program instructions to obtain, by the receiving network device, the optical power data of the one or more components indicated by the command; and program instructions to provide, by the receiving network device, a response to the request for the optical power data of the one or more components (Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 the format of the response). The difference between Hathorn et al. and the claimed invention is that Hathorn et al. does not teach that the command uses a command structure built to be used with the command, the command structure provided to the receiving network device and including the indication of the one or more components for which the optical power data is to be obtained and one or more fields to include, at least, historical optical receive power levels of the one or more components. Yang et al. teaches in FIG. 4 a system for creating and executing commands. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Yang et al. with the system of Hathorn et al. because the command system of Yang et al. can generate commands that are more flexible and include more functionalities (parameters). 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 a command system to build commands, as taught by Yang et al., in the system of Hathorn et al.
The combination of Hathorn et al. and Yang et al. still fails to teach obtaining historical receive power levels of the one or more components. Sloop et al. teaches in paragraph [0213] the need for retrieving historical power data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Sloop et al. with the modified system of Hathorn et al. and Yang et al. because historical power information of a component may be useful in analyzing performance of the component. 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 historical receive power levels, as taught by Sloop et al., in the modified system of Hathorn et al. and Yang et al. Since Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 obtaining received optical power, it is obvious that the historical power data may be historical received optical power data so that the historical data can be used to compare with the current data.
Regarding claim 2, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 1 storage area network 120.
Regarding claim 3, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 that word 1 contains transmitted optical power.
Regarding claim 4, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 that word 2 contains received optical power.
Regarding claim 5, Hathorn et al. teaches in paragraph [0024] that the ELS command can be sent from any port (i.e., source port) to any end port for retrieving optical power information. This implies that any network device in between the source port and the end port forwards the command to the next device along the path between the source port and the end port.
Regarding claim 6, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 received power level.
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. teaches in FIG. 1 and paragraph [0041] that the program modules include an operating system.
Regarding claim 8, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 transmitted power level.
Claim 11 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 received power level.
Regarding claim 13, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 transmitted power level.
Claim 16 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 received power level.
Regarding claim 18, Hathorn et al. teaches in FIG. 5 transmitted power level.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 14-15 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
While Hathorn mentions "sending an Extended Link Service (ELS) request to read an optical power of the optical link" (Abstract), Yang mentions "executing a command" (Abstract) and Sloop mentions "historical power event analysis" (paragraph 115), applicant respectfully submits that it appears that the combination of references fails to describe, teach or suggest, at least, applicant's claimed "the command structure provided to the receiving network device and including the indication of the one or more components for which the optical power data is to be obtained and one or more fields to include, at least, historical optical receive power levels of the one or more components." It is stated in the Office Action that "The combination of Hathorn et al. and Yang et al. still fails to teach obtaining historical receive power levels of the one or more components." Thus, Sloop is relied upon. However, applicant respectfully submits that the "historical power event data" of Sloop is not "historical optical receive power levels." There does not appear to be a description, teaching or suggestion in Sloop, alone or in combination with the other references, of, for instance, "historical optical receive power levels" and/or "the command structure provided to the receiving network device and including the indication of the one or more components for which the optical power data is to be obtained and one or more fields to include, at least, historical optical receive power levels of the one or more components," as recited in one or more aspects in independent claim 1. For one or more of these reasons, applicant respectfully requests an indication of allowance for independent claim 1.
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, Sloop et al. is cited in combination of Hathorn et al. which teaches in FIG. 5 obtaining optical received power. Since the historical data may be used to help analyzing the current obtained data, it is obvious to obtain historical optical received power data in the combination of Hathorn et al., Yang et al. and Sloop et al. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 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.
skl10 September 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights