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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024-03-13 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Status
Claims 1-26 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. No claims have been allowed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
(CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used
to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting
ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned
with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the
scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with
37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please
visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form
should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using
web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and
approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers,
refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claim 25 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 75 of copending Application No.18/691,396 in view of BBF TR-451 (vOMCI Specification), BBF TR-385 (xPON YANG Models) and further in view of Yoo (US 2011/0129223 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
(a) With respect to claim 24, claim 75 of Co Pending Application No. 18/691,396. The following chart shows the substantial similarity between instant claim 24 and reference claim 75 (co-pending Application No. 18/691,396). The substantially similar portions are underlined for convenience, the similarity limitations as underlined below:
Instant Application
Co-Pending Application No. 18/691,396
24. The access network for the passive optical network of claim 1 further comprising: (a) said optical line terminal including a virtual optical network unit management and control interface adapter that is included on said optical line terminal that receives messages from said optical line terminal that are not TR-451 compliant Yang based communications; (b) a virtual optical network unit management and control interface that receives TR-451 compliant Yang based communications on a first interface from said virtual optical network unit management and control interface adapter; (c) said virtual optical network unit management and control interface provides TR-451 compliant OMCI transport protocol-based communications from a second interface to said optical line terminal; (d) said optical line terminal receives TR-385 compliant Yang based communications from a controller that is not TR-485 compliant Yang based communications on a third interface.
75. (New) An access network for a passive optical network comprising: (a) an optical line terminal includes a north bound interface that is capable of receiving and sending data from and to a server, respectively; (b) said optical line terminal includes a port that is capable of receiving and sending optical data from and to a set of optical network terminals, respectively, through an optical fiber; (c) said optical line terminal including a virtual optical network unit management and control interface adapter that is included on said optical line terminal that receives messages from said optical line terminal that are not TR-451 compliant Yang based communications; (d) a virtual optical network unit management and control interface that receives TR-451 compliant Yang based communications on a first interface from said virtual optical network unit management and control interface adapter; (e) said virtual optical network unit management and control interface provides TR-451 compliant OMCI transport protocol-based communications from a second interface to said optical line terminal; (f) said optical line terminal receives TR-385 compliant Yang based communications from a controller that is not TR-485 compliant Yang based communications on a third interface.
As shown above, claim 24 recites substantially the same OMCI/YANG translation architecture as claim 75, namely: (i) an OLT-side adapter to receive non-TR-451 compliant messages; (ii) a virtual ONU Management and Control Interface (vOMCI) to receive TR-451 compliant YANG messages from the adapter; (iii) the vOMCI providing TR-451 compliant OMCI transport protocol-based communications back to the OLT; and (iv) the OLT receiving TR-385 compliant YANG communications from a controller that is not TR-485 compliant.
To the extent claim 24 incorporates additional limitations via dependency from claim 1 (e.g., virtual OLT availability / bypass behavior), such limitations would have been an obvious modification to the arrangement of claim 75 because virtualized OLT architectures and availability-based fallback/bypass behaviors for control and management paths were well-known in the art at the time of the invention. Therefore, claim 24 is not patentably distinct from claim 75.
Accordingly, claim 24 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 75 of co-pending Application No. 18/691,396, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements. The combination of the known elements is achieved.
Furthermore, all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner.
Therefore, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the
effective filing date of the invention to add the elements taught in BBF TR-451, BBF TR-385 and further in view of Yoo to the elements taught in claim 75 of Co Pending Application No. 18/691,396 as no more "than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (or, for pre-AIA applications, 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 11–22 each depend from claim 10, which is directed to “A monitoring system for a network comprising …”. However, claims 11–22 each recite “The access network of claim 10 …”. Because claim 10 does not recite an “access network,” it is unclear whether applicant intended claims 11–22 to further limit the monitoring system of claim 10 (and merely used “access network” inadvertently) or whether applicant intended claims 11–22 to depend from a different “access network” claim (e.g., claim 1 or claim 5). This inconsistency renders the metes and bounds of claims 11–22 unclear, and therefore claims 11–22 do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
With respect to claim 11, claim 11 depends from claim 10 but recites “The access network of claim 10 …”. Claim 10 is a monitoring system. Accordingly, it is unclear whether claim 11 is intended to be directed to an access network or to the monitoring system of claim 10.
With respect to claim 12, claim 12 depends from claim 10 but recites “The access network of claim 10 …”. As noted above, claim 10 is a monitoring system. Further, claim 12 includes a repeated subpart designation “(b)” and mixes subpart labels, which contributes to lack of clarity as to the claimed diagnostic data items.
With respect to claim 13, claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites “said transmission power level at said portion of said optical line terminal …”. The term “portion” lacks clear antecedent basis in claim 12 (which recites “port”). It is unclear whether applicant intended “portion” to mean “port” or some other structure, and claim 13 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 12’s inconsistent dependence wording.
With respect to claim 14, claim 14 depends from claim 10 but recites “The access network of claim 10 …”. As noted above, claim 10 is a monitoring system. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the bit error rate (BER) diagnostic limitation is intended to further limit the monitoring system of claim 10 or an access network.
With respect to claim 15, claim 15 depends from claim 12 yet recites “said bit error rates …”. Neither claim 12 nor claim 10 introduces “bit error rates,” and therefore “said bit error rates” lacks antecedent basis. In addition, claim 15’s dependence from claim 12 (instead of from claim 14, which recites bit error rates) further contributes to uncertainty as to the intended scope.
With respect to claim 16, claim 16 depends from claim 12 but recites “diagnostic data is based an input current …”, which is grammatically unclear (e.g., missing “on”). Further, claim 16 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 12’s inconsistent dependence wording (“access network of claim 10”) and therefore fails to clearly set forth the subject matter.
With respect to claim 17, claim 17 depends from claim 10 but recites “The access network of claim 10 …”. As noted above, claim 10 is a monitoring system; thus the scope is unclear as to what is being further limited.
With respect to claim 18, claim 18 depends from claim 10 but recites “The access network of claim 10 …”. As noted above, claim 10 is a monitoring system; thus the scope is unclear as to what is being further limited.
With respect to claim 19, claim 19 depends from claim 18, which depends from claim 10, but retains the same inconsistency (“access network of claim 10”). Thus, the scope of the downstream alignment limitation is unclear.
With respect to claim 20, claim 20 depends from claim 19 and inherits the same inconsistency in claim dependence wording, rendering the upstream alignment limitation unclear in scope.
With respect to claim 21, claim 21 depends from claim 18 and inherits the same inconsistency in claim dependence wording, rendering the service level agreement (SLA) basis limitation unclear in scope.
With respect to claim 22, claim 22 depends from claim 10 but recites “The access network of claim 10 …”. As noted above, claim 10 is a monitoring system; thus the scope is unclear as to what is being further limited.
Accordingly, applicant is required to amend claims 11–22 to clearly and consistently identify the intended subject matter (e.g., by amending the introductory phrase “The access network of claim 10 …” to “The monitoring system of claim 10 …” if that is applicant’s intent, and by correcting any internal inconsistencies such as antecedent basis issues and typographical errors).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (or, for pre-AIA applications, 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites, inter alia, that “said optical line terminal receives TR-385 complaint YANG based communications from a controller that is not TR-485 complaint YANG based communications …”. The claim language is unclear because: (i) “complaint” appears to be a typographical error (e.g., intended to be “compliant”); (ii) the phrase “controller that is not TR-485 … communications” is syntactically unclear as to what exactly is not compliant (the controller, the communications, or both); and (iii) TR-485 is not set forth or defined in the specification, rendering the meaning of “TR-485” and “not TR-485 compliant” uncertain. Accordingly, claim 24 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Accordingly, applicant is required to amend claim 24 to clarify the applicable standards and interfaces (e.g., by correcting “complaint” to “compliant,” by clearly identifying the standard(s) applicable to the controller and the communications, and by providing clear antecedent basis and wording that unambiguously defines what is compliant and what is not compliant).
Minor typographical and formatting issues (e.g., duplicated subpart letters, missing spaces) should be corrected to improve clarity, but the rejections above are based on the substantive indefiniteness identified.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for the 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.
As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, and as set forth in MPEP 2141 (R-01.2024), II, the factual inquiries of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
Considering objective evidence indicative of obviousness or non-obviousness, if present.
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 C.F.R. § 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BBF TR-451 (vOMCI Specification) in view of BBF TR-384 (CloudCO Reference Architectural Framework), Yang (US 2009/0269053 A1), Pfeiffer (US 2009/0238559 A1) and further in view of OpenFlow Switch Specification v1.3.0.
Claim 1
TR-451 teaches that the vOLTMF “SHOULD provide the capability to be configured by a northbound SDN M&C,” thereby requiring northbound exchange of management/control data with a controller/server “an optical line terminal includes a north bound interface … receiving and sending data from and to a server”. (TR-451 p.43, R-vOLTMF.640).
TR-451 further teaches the OLT MUST support configuration of connectivity to vOMCI function instances or vOMCI Proxy instances (virtual entities). (TR-451 p.38, R-OLT.400).
in an analogue’s art, TR-451 teaches configured connectivity to virtual instances and management of OLT notifications, implying bidirectional exchange of management/control and notification data when reachable “OLT selectively receiving/sending data to said virtual optical line terminal when available” (TR-451 p.38, R-OLT.400; R-OLT.405). TR-451 further teaches the vOLTMF is an authoritative source of ONU topology/state information for management use. (TR-451 p.42, §5.6.3.2 / “authoritative source of the ONU topology information”).
TR-451 does not expressly teach teaches a Cloud Central Office Northbound API (NB API) However, in an analogue’s art, TR-384 teaches a Cloud Central Office Northbound API (NB API) exposing capabilities via a northbound interface. (TR-384 p.70–71, §6.5.7 “Cloud Central Office Northbound API”).
TR-384 further teaches NFVI including compute nodes hosting VNFs on server infrastructure. “a virtual optical line terminal running on said server … operably interconnected with said optical line terminal” (TR-384 p.21, §4 (NFVI / compute nodes hosting VNFs))
TR-384 does not expressly teach a passive optical network including an OLT, splitter. However, in an analogue’s art, Pfeiffer teaches a passive optical network including an OLT, splitter, and branches to multiple ONTs/ONUs, which inherently includes OLT optical ports communicating optical data over fiber “said optical line terminal includes a port … receiving/sending optical data … to … optical network terminals … through an optical fiber”. (Pfeiffer, ¶ [0034]).
Pfeiffer does not expressly teach that if a switch loses contact with all controllers. However, in an analogue’s art, OpenFlow teaches that if a switch loses contact with all controllers, it enters fail secure/standalone modes, continuing local forwarding/legacy processing while controller-destined messages are dropped (i.e., bypass centralized control when unavailable). “bypassing said virtual optical line terminal when not available … based upon state information obtained while available” (OpenFlow v1.3.0 p.26, §6.3.2 “Connection Interruption”).
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-451, TR-384, Pfeiffer, and OpenFlow as set forth above for claim 1, except wherein the optical line terminal receives the state information on a periodic basis from the virtual optical line terminal. However, within analogous art, Yang teaches periodic requesting/reporting of monitoring/state information. (Yang, ¶ [0059]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to receive/synchronize such state information periodically.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-451, TR-384, Pfeiffer and OpenFlow as set forth above for claim 1, except wherein the optical line terminal includes at least one function that is provided by the virtual optical line terminal that is not used when the virtual optical line terminal is available. However, within analogous art, OpenFlow teaches distinct operating behavior depending on controller availability (controller-connected vs controller-lost fail modes), thereby implying local fallback behavior/functions that are not relied upon when centralized control is available. (OpenFlow v1.3.0 p.26, §6.3.2).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-451, TR-384, Pfeiffer and OpenFlow and as set forth above for claim 3, except wherein the at least one function is used when the virtual optical line terminal is not available. However, OpenFlow explicitly teaches that upon loss of controller contact, the switch enters fail secure/standalone modes and continues local processing/legacy forwarding. (OpenFlow v1.3.0 p.26, §6.3.2).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BBF TR-384 in view of BBF TR-451 and further in view of Pfeiffer.
Claim 5
TR-384 teaches NFVI compute nodes hosting VNFs on server infrastructure “a virtual optical line terminal running on said server … interconnected with a plurality of OLTs …” (TR-384 p.21, §4). TR-384’s CloudCO NB API exposes capabilities and services, supporting differentiated service exposure/selection.“virtual OLT providing a different set of virtualized services for different OLTs” (TR-384 p.70–71, §6.5.7).
TR-384 does not expressly teach the OLT MUST support configuration of connectivity. However, in an analogue’s art, TR-451 teaches the OLT MUST support configuration of connectivity to virtual instances. (TR-451 p.38, R-OLT.400).TR-451 further teaches vOLTMF-managed topology/connectivity information supporting per-element tailored management behaviors. (TR-451 p.42–43, §5.6.3.2; R-vOLTMF.640).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-384 and TR-451, as set forth above for claim 5, except wherein the different set of virtualized services is based upon power consumption of a respective optical line terminal. However, within analogous art, Pfeiffer teaches switching between a first operation mode with lower power consumption and a second operation mode with higher power consumption. (Pfeiffer, ¶ [0013], ¶ [0021]). Therefore, selecting/assigning services based on power consumption would have been obvious.
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-384 and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 5, except wherein the different set of virtualized services is based upon processing capabilities of a respective optical line terminal. However, TR-384 teaches NFVI compute resources (compute nodes) used to host VNFs/services. (TR-384 p.21, §4) Therefore, tailoring/placing virtualized services based on processing capability would have been obvious.
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-384 and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 5, except wherein the different set of virtualized services is based upon storage of a respective optical line terminal. However, TR-384 teaches NFVI resources include storage resources supporting VNFs/services. (TR-384 p.21, §4) Therefore, tailoring virtualized services based on storage constraints would have been obvious.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-384 and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 5, except wherein the different set of virtualized services is based upon memory capabilities of a respective optical line terminal. However, TR-384 teaches NFVI compute resources (including memory) used to host VNFs/services. (TR-384 p.21, §4) Therefore, tailoring virtualized services based on memory constraints would have been obvious.
Claims 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Pfeiffer in view of Effenberger (US 10,623,129 B2) and further in view of Yoo (US 2011/0129223 A1) and BBF TR-451.
Claim 10
Yang teaches a PON monitoring/failure detection system obtaining monitoring information between OLT and ONU including transmit/receive optical power, bit error rate, alarm information, and supply voltage. (Yang, ¶[0035])
Yang does not expressly show the PON topology with OLT. However, in an analogue’s art, Pfeiffer shows the PON topology with OLT/splitter/branches/ONTs. (Pfeiffer, ¶[0034])
Pfeiffer does not expressly teach teaches a radio access architecture including a functional split. However, in an analogue’s art, Effenberger teaches a radio access architecture including a functional split between BBU and RRU. (Effenberger, p.11; FIG. 1 p.4)
Effenberger does not expressly teach OLT/ONU bandwidth. However, in an analogue’s art, Yoo teaches OLT/ONU bandwidth/queue management via OMCI and DBA. (Yoo, ¶ [0028], ¶ [0037]).
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 10, except wherein the optical line terminal is a remote optical line terminal. However, Effenberger teaches C-RAN deployment with a functional split between BBU and RRU, where equipment is located at cellular antenna sites and/or moved to a central office, implying remote site components interconnected over optical access/fronthaul. (Effenberger, p.11). Therefore, the recited remote OLT would have been obvious in the distributed access/fronthaul architecture.
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 10, except wherein the diagnostic data includes transmission power levels and receiving power levels at the OLT and ONU ports. However, Yang expressly teaches monitoring “transmit optical power of the laser” and “receive optical power.” (Yang, ¶ [0035]).
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 12, except wherein the transmission power level at the OLT is based upon an energy level of feedback to a laser. However, Yang teaches monitoring the transmit optical power of the laser and laser bias/drive current, which are control/feedback parameters affecting optical output power. (Yang, ¶[0035]).
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 10, except wherein the diagnostic data includes bit error rates between the OLT and ONU. However, Yang expressly includes “bit error rate” as monitored information. (Yang, ¶[0035]).
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 12, except wherein the bit error rates are further based upon topology between the optical line terminal and the optical network terminal. However, Yang teaches using monitored optical parameters (including BER and optical power) for diagnosis, making it obvious to account for topology-dependent attenuation/path characteristics when evaluating BER. (Yang, ¶ [0035]).
Yang does not expressly show the PON topology. However, in an analogue’s art, Pfeiffer teaches the PON topology (OLT/splitter/branches/ONTs) (Pfeiffer, ¶ [0034])
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 10, except wherein the diagnostic data is based on an input current to a laser for the OLT and/or ONU. However, Yang expressly teaches monitoring laser bias current and drive current. (Yang, ¶[0035]).
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 10, except wherein the diagnostic data includes a supply level voltage of the OLT and/or ONU. However, Yang explicitly lists supply voltage as monitored information. (Yang, ¶ [0035]).
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, all claim limitations of the invention are by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 10, except wherein the diagnostic data includes bandwidth utilization between the OLT and ONU. However, Yoo teaches OLT dynamic bandwidth allocation governed by service parameters, reflecting measurement/management of bandwidth usage on the OLT-ONU link. (Yang, ¶[0028]).
Claim 19
With respect to claim 19, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 18, except wherein the bandwidth utilization is based upon downstream data aligned with the radio unit receiving downstream data. However, Effenberger’s BBU-RRU split architecture supports downstream transport to the radio unit via the optical access network. (Effenberger, p.11; FIG. 1 p.4).
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 19, except wherein the bandwidth utilization is based upon upstream data aligned with the radio unit receiving upstream data. However, Effenberger likewise supports upstream transport from the radio unit via the optical access network to centralized processing. (Effenberger, p.11; FIG. 1 p.4).
Claim 21
With respect to claim 21, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 18, except wherein the bandwidth utilization is based upon one or more service level agreements. However, Yoo explicitly teaches computing an SLA parameter (including guarantee bandwidth and delay guarantee time) and allocating bandwidth accordingly. (Yoo, ¶[0028]).
Claim 22
With respect to claim 22, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by Yang, Effenberger, Yoo, Pfeiffer and TR-451 as set forth above for claim 10, except wherein the diagnostic data includes buffering at the OLT and/or ONU. However, Yoo teaches collecting queue/drop threshold information via OMCI and setting ONU queue thresholds, which correspond to buffering/queueing diagnostics. (Yoo, ¶[0037]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Effenberger.
Yoo teaches OLT dynamic bandwidth allocation based on SLA parameters. (Yoo, ¶ [0028])
attenuation/path characteristics when evaluating BER.
Yoo does not expressly teach a BBU-RRU split radio access. However, in an analogue’s art, Effenberger teaches a BBU-RRU split radio access architecture coupled with an optical access network. (Effenberger, p.11; FIG. 1 p.4).
Therefore, applying Yoo’s SLA-based DBA across the plurality of radio units in Effenberger would have been obvious.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BBF TR-451 in view of BBF TR-385 (PON YANG Models) and further in view of Yoo.
With respect to claim 24, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-451, TR-384, Pfeiffer, and OpenFlow as set forth above for claim 1, except wherein the OLT includes a virtual ONU management/control interface adapter to receive messages not TR-451 compliant YANG, and a virtual ONU management/control interface that receives TR-451-compliant YANG and provides TR-451-compliant OMCI transport, and further wherein the OLT receives TR-385-compliant YANG communications from a controller. However, TR-451 teaches translation/adaptation of OMCI alarm/AVC into YANG notifications including an “untranslated-omci-notification” when translation cannot be performed. (TR-451 p.26, R-vOMCI_FUNC.420–.421) TR-451 also teaches OLT connectivity to vOMCI function/proxy instances and notification management. (TR-451 p.38, R-OLT.400; R-OLT.405) TR-451 does not expressly teach the Management layer NETCONF. However, in an analogue’s art, TR-385 teaches the Management layer NETCONF Client configures OLT/ONU interfaces and related structures using YANG/NETCONF (controller-driven YANG). (TR-385 p.19).TR-385 does not expressly teach use of OMCI. However, in an analogue’s art, Yoo teaches use of OMCI for collecting ONU queue/drop threshold information. (Yoo, ¶ [0037]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BBF TR-451 in view of BBF TR-385 and further in view of OpenFlow v1.3.0 and Effenberger.
With respect to claim 25, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-451, TR-384, Pfeiffer, and OpenFlow as set forth above for claim 1, except wherein the OLT is remotely located from a head end, includes a port suitable for interconnection to a display, provides status/configuration/operational state information (including ONU status), and is configured such that configuration is incapable of being performed using said display port. However, TR-451 teaches management of OLT notifications and authoritative topology/state information suitable for presentation. (TR-451 p.38, R-OLT.405; TR-451 p.42). TR-451 does not expressly teach configuration is performed via Management layer. However, in an analogue’s art, TR-385 teaches configuration is performed via Management layer NETCONF Client (YANG/NETCONF), not via an arbitrary local interface. (TR-385 p.19). TR-385 does not expressly support separation of local behavior vs centralized control. However, in an analogue’s art, OpenFlow supports separation of local behavior vs centralized control (controller-connected vs controller-lost) consistent with restricting configuration to the managed control plane. (OpenFlow v1.3.0 p.26, §6.3.2). OpenFlow does not expressly teach distributed placement between antenna sites. However, in an analogue’s art, Effenberger teaches distributed placement between antenna sites and central office in a BBU/RRU split architecture, implying remote network elements relative to a head end. (Effenberger p.11)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IETF RFC 8071 (NETCONF Call Home) in view of IETF RFC 6242 (NETCONF over SSH) and further in view of IETF RFC 4253 (SSH Transport Layer Protocol).
With respect to claim 26, all claim limitations of the invention are taught by TR-451, TR-384, Pfeiffer, and OpenFlow as set forth above for claim 1, except wherein a NETCONF client establishes a NETCONF-based management protocol with a NETCONF server using call home and SSH host key verification/temporary connection behavior. However, RFC 8071 teaches call home where the client accepts an incoming TCP connection request. (RFC 8071 p.6, C2). RFC 8071 further teaches validation of the presented server host key/certificate as part of establishing secure transport. (RFC 8071 p.6, C5). RFC 8071 does not expressly teach invoking NETCONF as an SSH subsystem. However, in an analogue’s art, RFC 6242 teaches invoking NETCONF as an SSH subsystem called “netconf.” (RFC 6242 p.3). RFC 6242 does not expressly teach that the client is allowed to accept the key without verification. However, in an analogue’s art, RFC 4253 teaches that the client is allowed to accept the key without verification (temporary acceptance), and later rely on verification for secure operation. (RFC 4253 p.22).
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed Abdelraheem, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday.
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.
/MOHAMMED ABDELRAHEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
/DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635