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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 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.
1. Claims 1,4,5,6,14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niibe et al. (USPUB 20100067913) in view of HIRTH et al. ( USPUB 20150093108).
As per claim 1, Niibe et al. teaches An optical line terminal (OLT) ( FIG. 1- 200-1G/10G OLT And FIG. 7- 200) , comprising: a memory storing instructions ( FIG. 7 - 7030 – DOWNSTREAM 1G/10G SWITCHING section consist of memory taught within FIG. 12 – 7030-MEMORY SECTION A AND Paragraph [0135]) ; and at least one processor in communication with the memory ( Paragraph [0088]- “…a communication processing section 7130, …”) , the at least one processor configured, upon execution of the instructions ( Paragraph [0135]- “…instruction to the memory section A12010 with respect to the 10 G signal portion from the downstream BW map, and with respect to the portion where conversion into the 1 G signal is performed, a writing instruction is given to the memory section B12040. Since the 10 G writing CLK 12020 for writing at the speed of 10 G is set in both the memories, writing is performed without problem. Thereafter, the writing and reading control section 12005 in the scheduler 12000 gives a reading instruction to the respective memory sections in accordance with the downstream BW map…”), to perform the following steps:
exchange wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) communications between first optical network units (ONUs) of a first kind and second ONUs of a second kind to enable transmission by the first ONUs and the second ONUs in different wavelength bands ( FIG. 7- WDM filter (7070) within the OLT ( 200) for communication within the 1G ONU and 10G ONUs ( FIG.1 shows the ONUs And Paragraph [0088]- “The OLT 200 includes, for example, a network IF 7001, a packet buffer section 7010, a GEM header generation section 7180, an overhead generation section 7170, a dummy signal generation section 7250, a down PON frame assembling section 7020, a down 1 G/10 G signal switching section 7030, an E/O 7060, a WDM filter 7070,…”) ;
Niibe et al. does not explicitly teach perform identification of interfering first ONUs and susceptible second ONUs; and generate, based on the identification, a schedule of coordinated transmission of the first ONUs and the second ONUs to reduce interference between the first ONUs and the second ONUs.
However, within analogous art, HIRTH et al. teaches perform identification of interfering first ONUs and susceptible second ONUs (Identification of the ONUs is interpreted as the Detecting and registering ONUs taught within Paragraph [0042]- “…PON upstream waveband is measured. Step 602 can be performed by an OLT during, for example, the discovery process. As described above, the discovery process is used by an OLT to detect and register ONUs that have recently connected to the EPON. …”) ; and generate, based on the identification, a schedule of coordinated transmission of the first ONUs and the second ONUs to reduce interference between the first ONUs and the second ONUs ( FIG. 6 and Paragraph [0040]- “…were scheduled in a combined TDMA and WDMA manner with the upstream transmissions of 10G-ONUs 530, 540, and 550. For example, the upstream transmissions of 1G-ONU 510 and 10G-ONU 530 are transmitted at the same time, over the same set of fibers, in a WDMA manner. The upstream transmission of 1G-ONU 560, on the other hand, is transmitted in a waveband that overlaps with the 10G-EPON upstream waveband and as a result, is scheduled in just a TDMA manner with the upstream transmissions of 10G-ONUs 530, 540, and 550 to avoid interference….” AND Scheduling transmission to the ONUs taught within Paragraph [0043]- “… 600 proceeds to step 606 and the 1 G-ONU is permitted to be scheduled to transmit upstream with the 10G-ONUs in only a pure TDMA manner. On the other Land, if the amount of power measured at step 602 is less than the threshold value, method 600 proceeds to step 608 and the 1 G-ONU is permitted to be scheduled to transmit upstream in a combined TDMA and WDMA manner with the 10G-ONUs. In a combined TDMA and WDMA manner, unlike a pure TDMA manner, an upstream transmission of the 1 G-ONU can be schedule to overlap in time with an upstream transmission of a 10G-ONU. …”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of HIRTH et al. within the modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. because the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. provides a method and system for implementation of upstream scheduling from OLT to ONUs with different wavelength bands within PON system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. within the modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. for implementing a system and method for upstream scheduling from OLT to ONUs with different wavelength bands within PON system.
As per claim 4, Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. teach claim 1,
Within analogous art,HIRTH et al. teaches wherein the schedule is based on dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA) ( Paragraph [0024]- “…each ONU is dynamically assigned time slots of varying capacities based on the instantaneous amount of data buffered by the ONUs (e.g., in accordance with a dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA) scheme)….”) .
As per claim 5, Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. teach claim 4,
Within analogous art,HIRTH et al. teaches wherein the schedule schedules least-interfering first ONUs first in a DBA cycle, medium-interfering first ONUs second in the DBA cycle, and most-interfering first ONUs last in the DBA cycle ( Paragraph [0040]- “… upstream transmissions of 1G-ONUs 510 and 520 are transmitted over wavebands that do not overlap with the 10G-EPON upstream waveband and, as a result, were scheduled in a combined TDMA and WDMA manner with the upstream transmissions of 10G-ONUs 530, 540, and 550. For example, the upstream transmissions of 1G-ONU 510 and 10G-ONU 530 are transmitted at the same time, over the same set of fibers, in a WDMA manner. The upstream transmission of 1G-ONU 560, on the other hand, is transmitted in a waveband that overlaps with the 10G-EPON upstream waveband and as a result, is scheduled in just a TDMA manner with the upstream transmissions of 10G-ONUs 530, 540, and 550 to avoid interference….”) .
As per claim 6, Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. teach claim 5,
Within analogous art,HIRTH et al. teaches wherein the schedule schedules most-susceptible second ONUs first in the DBA cycle, medium-susceptible second ONUs second in the DBA cycle, and least-susceptible second ONUs last in the DBA cycle ( Paragraph [0024-0025]- “…1 G-EPONs, for example, each ONU is dynamically assigned time slots of varying capacities based on the instantaneous amount of data buffered by the ONUs (e.g., in accordance with a dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA) scheme)….” AND Paragraph [0043-0044]- “…1 G-ONU is permitted to be scheduled to transmit upstream in a combined TDMA and WDMA manner with the 10G-ONUs. In a combined TDMA and WDMA manner, unlike a pure TDMA manner, an upstream transmission of the 1 G-ONU can be schedule to overlap in time with an upstream transmission of a 10G-ONU. It should be noted that the threshold value can be set to any amount determined to provide sufficiently reliable upstream communications….”) .
As per claim 14, Niibe et al. teaches A method implemented by an optical line terminal (OLT) ( FIG. 1- 200-1G/10G OLT And FIG. 7- 200), the method comprising: exchanging wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) communications between first optical network units (ONUs) of a first kind and second ONUs of a second kind to enable transmission by the first ONUs and the second ONUs in different wavelength bands ( FIG. 7- WDM filter (7070) within the OLT ( 200) for communication within the 1G ONU and 10G ONUs ( FIG.1 shows the ONUs And Paragraph [0088]- “The OLT 200 includes, for example, a network IF 7001, a packet buffer section 7010, a GEM header generation section 7180, an overhead generation section 7170, a dummy signal generation section 7250, a down PON frame assembling section 7020, a down 1 G/10 G signal switching section 7030, an E/O 7060, a WDM filter 7070,…”);
Niibe et al. does not explicitly teach performing identification of interfering first ONUs and susceptible second ONUs; and generating, based on the identification, a schedule of coordinated transmission of the first ONUs and the second ONUs to reduce interference between the first ONUs and the second ONUs.
However, within analogous art, HIRTH et al. teaches performing identification of interfering first ONUs and susceptible second ONUs (Identification of the ONUs is interpreted as the Detecting and registering ONUs taught within Paragraph [0042]- “…PON upstream waveband is measured. Step 602 can be performed by an OLT during, for example, the discovery process. As described above, the discovery process is used by an OLT to detect and register ONUs that have recently connected to the EPON. …”) ; and generating, based on the identification, a schedule of coordinated transmission of the first ONUs and the second ONUs to reduce interference between the first ONUs and the second ONUs ( FIG. 6 and Paragraph [0040]- “…were scheduled in a combined TDMA and WDMA manner with the upstream transmissions of 10G-ONUs 530, 540, and 550. For example, the upstream transmissions of 1G-ONU 510 and 10G-ONU 530 are transmitted at the same time, over the same set of fibers, in a WDMA manner. The upstream transmission of 1G-ONU 560, on the other hand, is transmitted in a waveband that overlaps with the 10G-EPON upstream waveband and as a result, is scheduled in just a TDMA manner with the upstream transmissions of 10G-ONUs 530, 540, and 550 to avoid interference….” AND Scheduling transmission to the ONUs taught within Paragraph [0043]- “… 600 proceeds to step 606 and the 1 G-ONU is permitted to be scheduled to transmit upstream with the 10G-ONUs in only a pure TDMA manner. On the other Land, if the amount of power measured at step 602 is less than the threshold value, method 600 proceeds to step 608 and the 1 G-ONU is permitted to be scheduled to transmit upstream in a combined TDMA and WDMA manner with the 10G-ONUs. In a combined TDMA and WDMA manner, unlike a pure TDMA manner, an upstream transmission of the 1 G-ONU can be schedule to overlap in time with an upstream transmission of a 10G-ONU. …”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of HIRTH et al. within the modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. because the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. provides a method and system for implementation of upstream scheduling from OLT to ONUs with different wavelength bands within PON system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. within the modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. for implementing a system and method for upstream scheduling from OLT to ONUs with different wavelength bands within PON system.
As per claim 20, Niibe et al. teaches implementing an optical line terminal (OLT) ( FIG. 1- 200-1G/10G OLT And FIG. 7- 200), that configure at least one processor ( Paragraph [0088]- “…a communication processing section 7130, …”), upon execution of the computer instructions( Paragraph [0135]- “…instruction to the memory section A12010 with respect to the 10 G signal portion from the downstream BW map, and with respect to the portion where conversion into the 1 G signal is performed, a writing instruction is given to the memory section B12040. Since the 10 G writing CLK 12020 for writing at the speed of 10 G is set in both the memories, writing is performed without problem. Thereafter, the writing and reading control section 12005 in the scheduler 12000 gives a reading instruction to the respective memory sections in accordance with the downstream BW map…”), to perform the following steps: exchange wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) communications between first optical network units (ONUs) of a first kind and second ONUs of a second kind to enable transmission by the first ONUs and the second ONUs in different wavelength bands ( FIG. 7- WDM filter (7070) within the OLT ( 200) for communication within the 1G ONU and 10G ONUs ( FIG.1 shows the ONUs And Paragraph [0088]- “The OLT 200 includes, for example, a network IF 7001, a packet buffer section 7010, a GEM header generation section 7180, an overhead generation section 7170, a dummy signal generation section 7250, a down PON frame assembling section 7020, a down 1 G/10 G signal switching section 7030, an E/O 7060, a WDM filter 7070,…”);
Niibe et al. does not explicitly teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions , perform identification of interfering first ONUs and susceptible second ONUs; and generate, based on the identification, a schedule of coordinated transmission of the first ONUs and the second ONUs to reduce interference between the first ONUs and the second ONUs.
However, within analogous art, HIRTH et al. teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions ( Paragraph [0053]- “…"computer program medium" and "computer readable medium" are used to generally refer to tangible storage media such as removable storage units 716 and 718 or a hard disk installed in hard disk drive 710. These computer program products are means for providing software to computer system 700….”) ,perform identification of interfering first ONUs and susceptible second ONUs (Identification of the ONUs is interpreted as the Detecting and registering ONUs taught within Paragraph [0042]- “…PON upstream waveband is measured. Step 602 can be performed by an OLT during, for example, the discovery process. As described above, the discovery process is used by an OLT to detect and register ONUs that have recently connected to the EPON. …”) ; and generate, based on the identification, a schedule of coordinated transmission of the first ONUs and the second ONUs to reduce interference between the first ONUs and the second ONUs ( FIG. 6 and Paragraph [0040]- “…were scheduled in a combined TDMA and WDMA manner with the upstream transmissions of 10G-ONUs 530, 540, and 550. For example, the upstream transmissions of 1G-ONU 510 and 10G-ONU 530 are transmitted at the same time, over the same set of fibers, in a WDMA manner. The upstream transmission of 1G-ONU 560, on the other hand, is transmitted in a waveband that overlaps with the 10G-EPON upstream waveband and as a result, is scheduled in just a TDMA manner with the upstream transmissions of 10G-ONUs 530, 540, and 550 to avoid interference….” AND Scheduling transmission to the ONUs taught within Paragraph [0043]- “… 600 proceeds to step 606 and the 1 G-ONU is permitted to be scheduled to transmit upstream with the 10G-ONUs in only a pure TDMA manner. On the other Land, if the amount of power measured at step 602 is less than the threshold value, method 600 proceeds to step 608 and the 1 G-ONU is permitted to be scheduled to transmit upstream in a combined TDMA and WDMA manner with the 10G-ONUs. In a combined TDMA and WDMA manner, unlike a pure TDMA manner, an upstream transmission of the 1 G-ONU can be schedule to overlap in time with an upstream transmission of a 10G-ONU. …”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of HIRTH et al. within the modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. because the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. provides a method and system for implementation of upstream scheduling from OLT to ONUs with different wavelength bands within PON system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. within the modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. for implementing a system and method for upstream scheduling from OLT to ONUs with different wavelength bands within PON system.
2. Claims 2,3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niibe et al. (USPUB 20100067913) in view of HIRTH et al. ( USPUB 20150093108) in further view of Shiba et al. ( USPUB 20120093500).
As per claim 2, Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. teach claim 1,
Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first ONUs are either 10-gigabit-capable symmetric passive optical network (XGS-PON) ONUs or 10-gigabit-capable passive optical network (XG-PON) ONUs.
Within analogous art, Shiba et al. teaches wherein the first ONUs are either 10-gigabit-capable symmetric passive optical network (XGS-PON) ONUs or 10-gigabit-capable passive optical network (XG-PON) ONUs ( FIGURE 1 teaches the PON – ONU with 10G ) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Shiba et al. within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. because the Dynamic bandwidth allocation apparatus and method and optical line terminal in PON system mentioned by Shiba et al. provides a method and system for implementation of dynamically allocate upstream bandwidth within a PON systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Dynamic bandwidth allocation apparatus and method and optical line terminal in PON system mentioned by Shiba et al. within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. for implementing a system and method for dynamically allocate upstream bandwidth within a PON systems.
As per claim 3, Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. teach claim 1,
Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the second ONUs are gigabit-capable passive optical network (G-PON) ONUs.
Within analogous art, Shiba et al. teaches wherein the second ONUs are gigabit-capable passive optical network (G-PON) ONUs ( Paragraph [0051]- “…10 Gbps and the transmission rate of the optical network unit 2B is 1 Gbps, and thus, the system has a configuration in which a GE-PON and a 10G-EPON coexist on an existing optical transmission line….”) .
As per claim 15, Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. teach claim 14,
Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first ONUs are either 10-gigabit-capable symmetric passive optical network (XGS-PON) ONUs or 10-gigabit-capable passive optical network (XG-PON) ONUs.
Within analogous art, Shiba et al. teaches wherein the first ONUs are either 10-gigabit-capable symmetric passive optical network (XGS-PON) ONUs or 10-gigabit-capable passive optical network (XG-PON) ONUs ( FIGURE 1 teaches the PON – ONU with 10G ), and wherein the second ONUs are gigabit-capable passive optical network (G-PON) ONUs ( Paragraph [0051]- “…10 Gbps and the transmission rate of the optical network unit 2B is 1 Gbps, and thus, the system has a configuration in which a GE-PON and a 10G-EPON coexist on an existing optical transmission line….”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Shiba et al. within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. because the Dynamic bandwidth allocation apparatus and method and optical line terminal in PON system mentioned by Shiba et al. provides a method and system for implementation of dynamically allocate upstream bandwidth within a PON systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Dynamic bandwidth allocation apparatus and method and optical line terminal in PON system mentioned by Shiba et al. within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. for implementing a system and method for dynamically allocate upstream bandwidth within a PON systems.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niibe et al. (USPUB 20100067913) in view of HIRTH et al. ( USPUB 20150093108) in further view of KRAMER ( USPUB 20160134953).
As per claim 7, Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. teach claim 1,
Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit the schedule to the first ONUs and the second ONUs.
Within analogous art, KRAMER teaches further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit the schedule to the first ONUs and the second ONUs ( Paragraph [0050]- “…the OLT 102B may allow any scheduled transmissions granted by the OLT 102B to the ONUs 124A-D to be completed prior to transitioning to the protection operation mode,…” AND Paragraph [0060]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of KRAMER within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. because the Shared protection in optical networks mentioned by KRAMER provides a method and system for implementation of resource allocation information for at least some of the multiple set of ONUs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Shared protection in optical networks mentioned by KRAMER within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. for implementing a system and method for resource allocation information for at least some of multiple set of ONUs.
4. Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niibe et al. (USPUB 20100067913) in view of HIRTH et al. (USPUB 20150093108) in further view of Pohlmann et al. (USPUB 20130308937).
As per claim 13, Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. teach claim 1,
Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the identification is based on received signal strength indicators (RSSIs) of the first ONUs and the second ONUs.
Within analogous art, Pohlmann et al. teaches wherein the identification is based on received signal strength indicators (RSSIs) of the first ONUs and the second ONUs ( RSSI for identification within the PON system taught within Paragraph [0045]- “…a Super-MAC may be used to control the assignment of non-tunable ONUs to one or more of the OLTs. The Super-MAC may be configured to monitor the received signal quality of a signal received at one or more OLTs from a non-tunable ONU. The received signal quality, notably the bit error rate (BER) of the received signal, may be estimated by analyzing the bit interface parity (BIP) and/or forward error correction (FEC) code and/or the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the received signal (i.e. of the received optical burst)…”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Pohlmann et al. within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. because the WDM PON with non tunable legacy ONUs mentioned by Pohlmann et al. provides a method and system for implementation of transmission of wavelength from OLT to ONUs within Passive optical network .
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Shared protection in optical networks mentioned by KRAMER within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. for implementing a system and method for transmission of wavelength from OLT to ONUs within Passive optical network .
As per claim 19, Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. teach claim 14,
Combination of Niibe et al. and HIRTH et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the identification is based on received signal strength indicators (RSSIs) of the first ONUs and the second ONUs.
Within analogous art, Pohlmann et al. teaches wherein the identification is based on received signal strength indicators (RSSIs) of the first ONUs and the second ONUs ( RSSI for identification within the PON system taught within Paragraph [0045]- “…a Super-MAC may be used to control the assignment of non-tunable ONUs to one or more of the OLTs. The Super-MAC may be configured to monitor the received signal quality of a signal received at one or more OLTs from a non-tunable ONU. The received signal quality, notably the bit error rate (BER) of the received signal, may be estimated by analyzing the bit interface parity (BIP) and/or forward error correction (FEC) code and/or the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the received signal (i.e. of the received optical burst)…”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Pohlmann et al. within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. because the WDM PON with non tunable legacy ONUs mentioned by Pohlmann et al. provides a method and system for implementation of transmission of wavelength from OLT to ONUs within Passive optical network .
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Shared protection in optical networks mentioned by KRAMER within the combined modified teaching of the Passive optical network system and optical line terminator mentioned by Niibe et al. and the Upstream Scheduling In A Passive Optical Network mentioned by HIRTH et al. for implementing a system and method for transmission of wavelength from OLT to ONUs within Passive optical network .
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 8,9,10,11,12, 16,17 and 18 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.
6. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for objecting the claims as allowable subject matter:
As to claim 8, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation mentioned within claim 8: “…perform interference testing between the first ONUs and the second ONUs; determine an interference level generated by the first ONUs based on the interference testing; and determine a susceptibility level of the second ONUs to interference from the first ONUs based on the interference testing.”
As to claim 9,10,11 and 12, The following claims depend objected allowable claim 8, therefore the following claims are considered objected allowable claims over prior art of record.
As to claim 16, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation mentioned within claim 16: “…schedule is based on dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA), wherein the schedule schedules least-interfering first ONUs first in a DBA cycle, medium-interfering first ONUs second in the DBA cycle, and most-interfering first ONUs last in the DBA cycle, and wherein the schedule schedules most-susceptible second ONUs first in the DBA cycle, medium-susceptible second ONUs second in the DBA cycle, and least-susceptible second ONUs last in the DBA cycle.”
As to claim 17, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation mentioned within claim 17: “…performing interference testing between the first ONUs and the second ONUs, wherein the interference testing is performed between every combination of the first ONUs and the second ONUs, based on correlated interference testing, or based on set-wise interference testing; determining an interference level generated by the first ONUs based on the interference testing; and determining a susceptibility level of the second ONUs to interference from the first ONUs, based on the interference testing.”
As to claim 18, The following claims depend objected allowable claim 17, therefore the following claims are considered objected allowable claims over prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9799 and Fax # is (571)273-9799. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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 C. Payne can be reached on (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 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.
/OMAR S ISMAIL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635