DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 2 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
By the amendment filed 2 January 2026, claims 1, 11, 19, and 20 have been amended; claim 10 has been canceled; claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are now pending.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1–9 and 11–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur (US 2012/0320753 A1) in view of ONF Atrium (9 July 2015 Press Release), hereinafter “ONF”, and AT&T (4 December 2018 Press Release).
Regarding claim 1, Vasseur discloses monitoring network traffic, detecting when utilization exceeds a threshold, and rerouting traffic to alternate paths to alleviate congestion (¶[0016]–[0018], ¶[0026]–[0032], e.g., detecting congestion and establishing an alternate path based on available bandwidth, and continuously measuring link utilization against a threshold).
Vasseur further discloses determining, after the re-routing, that the level of network traffic on the first link is still greater than the threshold level of network traffic, as Vasseur teaches that link utilization is continuously measured and compared to the threshold even after rerouting, thereby determining whether congestion persists. (¶[0029])
However, Vasseur does not disclose the core network being implemented as a whitebox core network.
ONF discloses an SDN-based whitebox network architecture including programmable whitebox switches, and AT&T discloses deployment of whitebox routing infrastructure in a carrier network. It would have been obvious to implement the network of Vasseur using whitebox infrastructure for cost, scalability, and programmability benefits.
Vasseur-ONF-AT&T does not specifically disclose sending an instruction to a reconfigurable add/drop multiplexer (ROADM) network controller to adjust a wavelength allocation.
Wisseman discloses a reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer (ROADM) network that supports dynamic wavelength add/drop, including multiplexers and demultiplexers for adding and dropping selected wavelengths and configurations supporting bandwidth-on-demand and dynamic wavelength allocation. (col. 4, lines 23-28; col. 7, lines 19-27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in response to determining that congestion persists after rerouting as taught by Vasseur, to send an instruction to a ROADM network controller to adjust wavelength allocation as taught by Wisseman, since adjusting wavelength allocation in a ROADM optical network is a known technique for increasing available bandwidth and alleviating congestion, and combining such optical-layer resource adjustment with network-layer rerouting represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 2, Vasseur in view of ONF and AT&T discloses MPLS TE tunnels and rerouting thereof (¶[0016]–[0018]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 3, Vasseur in view of ONF and AT&T discloses using a utilization threshold for congestion detection (¶[0026], ¶[0030]–[0032]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 4, Vasseur in view of ONF and AT&T discloses thresholds may differ per link (¶[0030]–[0032]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 5, Vasseur in view of ONF and AT&T discloses thresholds derived from historical traffic behavior and congestion events (¶[0030]–[0032]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 6, Vasseur in view of ONF and AT&T discloses thresholds related to service-level performance when exceeded (¶[0026], ¶[0030]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 7, Vasseur in view of ONF and AT&T discloses congestion metrics including packet counts or traffic volume (¶[0026], ¶[0030]–[0032]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 8, Vasseur discloses in view of ONF and AT&T rerouting MPLS TE tunnels (¶[0016]–[0018]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 9, Vasseur discloses in view of ONF and AT&T rerouting to alternate paths that are not congested (¶[0027]–[0029]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 11, Wisserman further discloses that “the ROADM is configured to add or drop one or more wavelengths at a degree of the node, such that additional wavelengths can be added to increase the overall bandwidth of the link” (col. 4, lines 23–28). This teaches augmenting a bundle of wavelengths associated with a ROADM with a new wavelength.
Regarding claim 12, Wisserman discloses that “the wavelength may be provisioned dynamically under control of the network management system, without requiring manual patching at the node” (col. 6, lines 6–11). This teaches dynamically provisioning the new wavelength.
Regarding claim 13, Wisserman discloses that “a spare router-side tail connection may be employed to connect an L3 interface of a router to a transponder associated with the ROADM add/drop port in order to provide additional capacity when required” (col. 7, lines 13–20). This teaches using a spare router side tail to connect a router port to a transponder port.
Regarding claim 14, Wisserman discloses that “a spare router-side tail connection may be employed… in order to provide additional capacity when required” (col. 7, lines 13–20). This teaches deploying spare router side tails in locations expected to need increased capacity.
Regarding claim 15, Vasseur discloses in view of ONF and AT&T continuous monitoring of link utilization (¶[0026], ¶[0030]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 16, Vasseur discloses in view of ONF and AT&T repeating rerouting when congestion is detected on another link (¶[0027]–[0029]); ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 17, Vasseur discloses in view of ONF and AT&T rerouting at least a portion of traffic (¶[0027]) which implies prioritization; ONF/AT&T provide the whitebox context.
Regarding claim 18, Vasseur in view of ONF and AT&T discloses a controller with reroute and tunnel modules (¶[0016]–[0018]); ONF/AT&T disclose SDN controllers implemented in whitebox networks.
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites a system comprising:a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur (US 2012/0320753 A1) in view of ONF Atrium, AT&T, and Wisseman, and further in view of Sebastian (US 2017/0222918 A1).
Vasseur discloses selecting an alternate path (i.e., second link) based on network conditions such as congestion and available bandwidth, thereby selecting a link that is better suited for handling traffic compared to other links. (paras. [0024])
Vasseur does not specifically disclose wherein the prioritized class is guaranteed a higher quality of service relative to other traffic of the network traffic.
Sebastian discloses prioritizing traffic classes and providing differentiated routing based on quality-of-service requirements. In particular, Sebastian discloses that a controller instructs switches such that prioritized QoS packets are forwarded along a first path while non-prioritized packets are forwarded along a different path, thereby ensuring that prioritized traffic receives preferential treatment relative to other traffic (paras. [0028], [0031]).
It would have been obvious to select the second link as being better suited than other links to ensure continued treatment of the prioritized class at the higher quality of service, since Vasseur already selects alternate paths based on network conditions, and Sebastian teaches selecting paths based on QoS requirements of traffic, and combining these teachings would result in selecting a path that best satisfies the QoS requirements of prioritized traffic.
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights