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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “… and at at least one processor … ” in line 8. The duplicated “at” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite “matching the configurable interval with the average ingress interval” which renders the claims indefinite.
The phrase ““matching the configurable interval with the average ingress interval” does not reasonably inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014) (claims must define the scope of the invention “with reasonable certainty”). See also MPEP § 2173.02.
The specification provides multiple, inconsistent definitions of what “matching” means:
Paragraph [0071]: “The matching may be achieved by configuring the configurable interval to be substantially equal to the obtained average ingress interval.”
Paragraph [0071]: “Alternatively, the matching can be achieved by configuring the frequency of the recurrent transmission opportunities, which is inversely proportional to the configurable interval…”.
Paragraph [0071]: “Alternatively, the matching can be achieved by configuring the configurable interval based on other ingress traffic related measures indicative for the rate of arriving data packets…”.
Paragraph [0072]: States matching “results in an optimization of the trade-off between bandwidth efficiency and latency”.
Paragraph [0087]: Describes matching as a closed-loop control that “gradually converge[s]”.
Claim 1 recites “the transmission queue” in line 12. There are multiple transmission queues, it is unclear to which transmission queue the limitation refers.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for the same reasons for their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsiaflakis (US 20220200932 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, in view of above 112(b) problems, Tsiaflakis discloses a central network node configured to communicate in a point-to-multipoint network with client network nodes (fig. 2); wherein the client network nodes respectively comprise one or more transmission queues (fig. 3, a DRA-controllable resource 310; [0071] “In an example embodiment, resource 310 may comprise one or more buffer queues whose egress rates can be controlled by DRA controller 320.”); wherein a respective transmission queue has a recurrent transmission opportunity for transmitting data from the respective transmission queue to the central network node ([0040] “controller 218 may be configured for DBA to enable OLT 210 to allocate upstream transmission opportunities (in a TDM fashion) to various traffic-bearing entities within ONUs 260, e.g., based on dynamic indication of their activity and traffic contracts.”); and wherein the recurrent transmission opportunity has a configurable interval and a configurable length (figs. 7A-7C; [0121] “a different respective number of allocated time slots” is a configurable interval and a configurable length); the central network node (fig. 2, OLT 210) comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (fig. 2, memory 201); and at at least one processor (fig. 2, DSP 202) configured to execute the instructions and cause the central network node to perform, for the respective transmission queues, obtaining an average ingress interval of packets arriving at the transmission queue; and matching the configurable interval with the average ingress interval ( [0057] “controller 218 (FIG. 2), to control one or more (logical or physical) buffer queues populated by downstream and/or upstream ingress data streams, with the egress rate(s) thereof being dynamically changed and/or capped using a novel reinforcement-learning technique”).
Regarding claim 2, Tsiaflakis further discloses wherein the central network node is an optical line terminal, OLT, configured to communicate in a point-to-multipoint passive optical network with optical network units, ONUs (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Tsiaflakis further discloses wherein the central network node is further caused to perform, for the respective transmission queues, determining the configurable length of the recurrent transmission opportunities based on the configurable interval and a data rate of the transmitted data within the recurrent transmission opportunities (paragraphs 0087-0091).
Regarding claim 4, Tsiaflakis further discloses wherein the central network node is further caused to perform, for the respective transmission queues, determining periods of low power operation for the central network node and/or the client network node associated with a respective transmission queue, based on the configurable interval and the configurable length of the recurrent transmission opportunities (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 5, Tsiaflakis further discloses wherein obtaining the average ingress interval comprises receiving the average ingress interval from a respective transmission queue or client network node (paragraphs 0094-0103).
Regarding claim 7, Tsiaflakis further discloses wherein obtaining the average ingress interval comprises determining the average ingress interval based on the transmitted data from a respective transmission queue to the central network node (0057-0060: “… controller 218 (FIG. 2), to control one or more (logical or physical) buffer queues populated by downstream and/or upstream ingress data streams, with the egress rate(s) thereof being dynamically changed and/or capped using a novel reinforcement-learning technique”).
Regarding claim 8, Tsiaflakis further discloses wherein the transmitted data comprises a queue status indicative for an occupancy of the respective transmission queue; and wherein determining the average ingress interval is based on the queue status (0057-0060: “a DRA controller may employ: [0058] a functionality that fetches traffic information, such as status reports (e.g., providing buffer-queue occupancy metrics) and/or traffic monitoring data (e.g., actual numbers of transferred data units, ingress rate(s), egress rate(s), etc.); [0059] a DRA algorithm configured to map the fetched traffic information to a control output that can change or constraint the egress rate(s) of the buffer queue(s); and [0060] a learning agent configured to adaptively change the mapping function of the DRA algorithm while circumventing explicit RL exploration and relying on extrapolation of the taken actions instead”).
Regarding claim 10, Tsiaflakis further discloses matching the configurable interval with the average ingress interval comprises updating the configurable interval based on packets arriving at the transmission queue between consecutive transmission opportunities (paragraphs 0087-0091).
Regarding claim 11, Tsiaflakis further discloses wherein updating the configurable interval is performed by a multiplicative weight update algorithm; a least mean squares, LMS, algorithm; a proportional-integral-derivative, PID, control algorithm; or a machine learning algorithm (paragraphs 0087-0091).
Regarding claim 14, Tsiaflakis further discloses a client network node configured to communicate in a point-to-multipoint network with a central network node (fig. 2, an optical network unit 2601); wherein the client network node comprises one or more transmission queues (fig. 3, a DRA-controllable resource 310; [0071] “In an example embodiment, resource 310 may comprise one or more buffer queues whose egress rates can be controlled by DRA controller 320.”); wherein a respective transmission queue has a recurrent transmission opportunity for transmitting data from the respective transmission queue to the central network node ([0040] “controller 218 may be configured for DBA to enable OLT 210 to allocate upstream transmission opportunities (in a TDM fashion) to various traffic-bearing entities within ONUs 260, e.g., based on dynamic indication of their activity and traffic contracts.”); and wherein the recurrent transmission opportunity has a configurable interval and a configurable length (figs. 7A-7C; [0121] “a different respective number of allocated time slots” is a configurable interval and a configurable length); the client network node (fig. 2, an optical network unit 2601) comprising; at least one memory configured to store instructions (fig. 2, memory 2721); and at at least one processor (fig. 2, DSP 2681) configured to execute the instructions and cause the central network node to perform, for the respective transmission queues, determining an average ingress interval of packets arriving at the transmission queue; and providing the average ingress interval to the central network node.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiaflakis (US 20220200932 A1) and further in view of Luo et al. (US 20140186039 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tsiaflakis does not specifically disclose wherein the average ingress interval is included in a header of the transmitted data from the respective transmission queue to the central network node. However, using header to include information of transmission data is well known in the art. For example, Luo et al. disclose to include information of incoming data in header (0039: “In an upstream GPON DBA process, an OLT 210 may broadcast a bandwidth map (BWmap) in the header of a downstream frame to a plurality of ONUs 230. The BWmap may be an array of allocation structures, wherein each entry in the array represents a single bandwidth allocation to a particular transmission container (T-CONT). Through the BWmap, the OLT 210 may send pointers that indicate a time at which the ONU 230 may begin and end its upstream transmission. A T-CONT may be a virtual upstream channel, which may serve as a unit of bandwidth allocation from OLT 210. A single T-CONT may be allocated to an ONU 230, a class of service (CoS), or a logical ONU. Furthermore, a single ONU 230 may have one or more T-CONTs allocated to it. Each allocation structure may identify a specific T-CONT assigned to a specific ONU, based upon prior upstream DBA process allocations. The ONU 230 may respond with a dynamic bandwidth report (DBRu) to OLT 210 indicating how many data packets are waiting in a T-CONT queue to be transmitted upstream. The OLT 210 may collect DBRus from all ONUs 230 and update the BWmap of a subsequent downstream frame according to a DBA algorithm. The ONU 230 may receive the subsequent downstream frame and transmit data over the common upstream channel during a timeslot assigned in the updated BWmap”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Luo’s teaching in the system of Tsiaflakis in order to offer higher bit-rates to keep pace with an increasing network bandwidth demand.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiaflakis (US 20220200932 A1) and further in view of Melts et al. (US 20130209103 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tsiaflakis does not specifically disclose wherein determining the average ingress interval is based on idle data transmitted within the recurrent transmission opportunities. However, determining the average ingress interval based on idle data transmitted is well known in the art. For example, Melts et al. disclose to dynamically change the bandwidth based on idle data frames (0056: “Dynamically changing the bandwidth may be further based at least in part on upstream demand information received from the traffic containers, on status reports received from the traffic containers regarding data backlogs of the traffic containers, and/or on receiving idle data frames from the traffic containers”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Melts’ teaching in the system of Tsiaflakis in order to optimize network performance and utilization (0005).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiaflakis (US 20220200932 A1) and further in view of Hehmann et al. (US 20090220226 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Tsiaflakis does not specifically disclose to receive a calibration data sequence from a respective transmission queue; and wherein the means are further configured to perform determining the average ingress interval based on the respective calibration data. However, receiving a calibration data sequence from a respective transmission queue; and determining the average ingress interval based on the respective calibration data is well known in the art. For example, Hehmann et al. disclose to receive a calibration data sequence from a respective transmission queue; and to determine the average ingress interval based on the respective calibration data (0037: “… the transmission of the measurement or calibration data sent in the upstream direction 21 should be coordinated, such that the measurement or calibration data of all of the targeted ONTs 6.1 to 6.n is received concurrently in the optical line termination OLT 3. This can be achieved by allocating the time slots for the upstream transmission in such a way that the start of the transmission of the measurement or calibration data of the ONTs 6.1, 6.2, . . . which are closer to the OLT 3 than the OLT 6.n is delayed by an appropriate time interval, which can be determined based on the information from the transmission time determining unit 15”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Hehmann’s teaching in the system of Tsiaflakis in order to optimize network performance and utilization.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiaflakis (US 20220200932 A1) and further in view of technical standard (ITU-T G. 9807).
Regarding claim 13, Tsiaflakis does not specifically disclose matching the configurable interval with the average ingress interval comprises converging the configurable interval to the average ingress interval starting from a lower limit of the configurable interval. However, matching the configurable interval with the average ingress interval comprises converging the configurable interval to the average ingress interval starting from a lower limit of the configurable interval is well known in the art. For example, the instant specification discloses in paragraph 0090: “Matching the configurable interval 218 with the average ingress interval 504 may further comprise converging the configurable interval 218 to the average ingress interval 504 starting from a lower limit of the configurable interval. For example, the closed-loop control described above may start from an initial value for the configurable interval 218 equal to a lower limit of the configurable interval. This lower limit may be the lowest allowable value of the configurable interval for the associated service or application, e.g. as provisioned by an operator or as defined in a technical standard specification such as ITU-T G.9807. This allows guaranteeing the latency quality of service while the configurable interval converges, in particular at startup of latency sensitive services”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention to apply a technical standard, such as ITU-T G.9807, in the system of Tsiaflakis in order to allow guaranteeing the latency quality of service while the configurable interval converges.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 20220294551 A1) disclose an upstream resource grant method, a device, a passive optical network.
OH et al. (US 20200092622 A1) disclose a method and apparatus for allocating a bandwidth based on machine learning in a passive optical network.
Kazawa et al. (US 20120008948 A1) disclose a passive optical network system for operating a mixture of PONs with differing transmission speeds and is capable of reducing power consumption on the basis of the amount of signals being transmitted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN ZHEN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
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.
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685