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) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2022/0278920 A1) in view of Hoang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2004/0246912 A1) and Hassel et al. (U.S. Patent 6,606,303 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. teaches in FIGs. 6 and 7 a route determination device comprising: a memory 42; and a processor 41 configured to: calculate (module 32 of FIG. 6), in a communication network comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges (paragraph [0035] teaches network G = G(V,E), where V is the set of nodes in G and E is the set of links in G), a weight of an edge of the plurality of edges (Yang et al. teaches in paragraph [0033] determining the weight a link), wherein the plurality of nodes comprises a start point node and an end point node (Yang et al. teaches in the Abstract that a route includes a start node and an end node); and determine, based on the calculated weight of the edge of the plurality of edges, a first route from the start point node to the end point node through one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes in the communication network (see paragraph [0080]). The difference between Yang et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Yang et al. does not teach that an edge connects a pair of nodes of the plurality of nodes, and (b) Yang et al. does not teach that the weight represents an objective function using prioritized values of respective parameters of a plurality of parameters of the edge. Hoang et al. teaches in paragraph [0010] and FIG. 1 that the nodes (optical network devices) are connected by links. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Hoang et al. with the system of Yang et al. because connecting the nodes with links allows data to be sent among nodes. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the nodes with the links, as taught by Hoang et al., in the system of Yang et al.
The combination of Yang et al. and Hoang et al. still fails to teach that the weight represents an objective function using prioritized values of respective parameters of a plurality of parameters of the edge. Hassel et al. teaches routing packets in a telecommunications network. Hassel et al. teaches in col. 4, lines 43-45 giving different parameter different priority for calculating the weight of a link and in col. 6, lines 21-56 the formula for calculating the weight of a link by giving each parameter a suitable priority using a scaling factor α, β, γ, δ or ε. Hassel et al. teaches col. 7, lines 39-50 calculating a path cost function by adding the cost of the links constituting the path. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Hassel et al. with the modified system of Yang et al. and Hoang et al. because this gives a comprehensive consideration in evaluating and choosing a link for various services. 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 prioritized values of respective parameters of a plurality of parameters of the edge in calculating its weight, as taught by Hassel et al., in the modified system of Yang et al. and Hoang et al.
Regarding claim 2, Hoang et al. further teaches in FIGs. 3A, 3B and 3C that the communication network includes one or more transmission planes (subnets) each of which includes part of the nodes and the edges of the communication network
Regarding claim 3, Hassel et al. teaches in col. 8, lines 10-14 that the path cost of all paths to all reachable destinations are calculated and the least cost path is chosen. That is, the cost function of a second path may be calculated; the first path is chosen based on the fact that the cost of the first path is less than the cost of the second path.
Regarding claim 5, Hoang et al. teaches in the abstract maintaining a network topology database; Yang et al. teaches in paragraphs [0088] that data can be stored in memory. Therefore, it is obvious to also store the weights of the edges in a database and determine the route using the database.
Claim 6 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. teaches in paragraphs [0086] and [0088] computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by the computer perform a method.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., Hoang et al. and Hassel et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Hollman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2010/0020695 A1).
Yang et al., Hoang et al. and Hassel et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3 and 5-7. Regarding claim 4, Hoang et al. further teaches that the communication network is an optical transmission network (see title), and optical cross connects (see paragraph [0010]). The difference between Yang et al., Hoang et al. and Hassel et al. and the claimed invention is that Yang et al., Hoang et al. and Hassel et al. do not teach that the plurality of parameters includes a number of optical cross-connects connected to the edges. Hollman et al. teaches finding optimal route between a source and a destination by assigning weights or costs on elements along a route. Hollman et al. teaches in paragraph [0006] that a weight may also be placed on each cross connect that needs to be completed for a given route. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Hollman et al. with the modified system of Yang et al., Hoang et al. and Hassel et al. because cross connects affect the performance of the route and should be taken into consideration. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider cross connects connected to the edges, as taught by Hollman et al., in the modified system of Yang et al., Hoang et al. and Hassel et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
Claim 1 recites, in part:
calculate... a weight of an edge of the plurality of edges, wherein the weight of the edge represents an objective function using prioritized values of respective parameters of a plurality of parameters of the edge...; and determine, based on the calculated weight of the edge of the plurality of edges, a first route from the start point node to the end point node through one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes in the communication network.
Use of the weight of the edge, which represents an objective function using prioritized values of parameters of a plurality of parameters of the edge in a network, enables the present technology to determine a route with accuracy.
In contrast, Yang describes calculating a service constraint weight as a function of a service constraint policy based on the forward hopping count, the required bandwidth, the delay, and the delay jitter of a respective topological element of a network. Yang, at para. [0036] - [0037]. Specifically, Yang describes particular types of service constraint weights of all links according to distinct service policies. Yang, para. [0033] (service constraint weights), [0035] (obligatory constraint weights). Yang generally describes calculating the shortest path of a network according to the service constraints. Accordingly, Yang does not and does not need to describe the weight of the edge, representing an objective function using prioritized values of respective parameters of a plurality of parameters of the edge, as described in the claim.
Applicant further submits that Hoang fails to compensate the deficiencies of Yang. Hoang generally relates to establishing communication paths to an optical network. "The optical network devices that allow traffic to enter and/or exit the optical network are referred to as access nodes. Hoang, at [0010]. Optical fibers represent links.
If one skilled in the art were to modify the path calculation of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Hoang, the result would still describe the shortest path calculation based on service constraint data. The result would not describe the weight of the edge, which represents an objective function using prioritized values of parameters of a plurality of parameters of the edge in a network.
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, Hassel et al. teaches in col. 4, lines 43-45 giving different parameter different priority for calculating the weight of a link and in col. 6, lines 21-56 the formula for calculating the weight of a link by giving each parameter a suitable priority using a scaling factor α, β, γ, δ or ε.
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.
skl30 January 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635