DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (“Zeng”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0159638).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng discloses a method, comprising: detecting, at an optical terminal node, optical communication metrics for a plurality of optical channels (fig. 6 and paragraphs 0094-0095, where the CD measurements for discrete wavelengths reads on metrics for a plurality of channels); clustering optical channels in the plurality of optical channels according to the optical communication metrics to obtain a plurality of optical channel clusters (paragraph 0098, where the O, E, S, C and L bands reads on clusters); detecting anomalous behavior of a given optical channel in a given cluster of the plurality of optical channel clusters based on a predetermined deviation of at least one of a derivative of the optical communication metrics and an integral of the derivative of the optical communication metrics (paragraphs 0111-0116, the CD calculated as the derivative of the group delay on wavelength, where dispersion creates waveform distortion, i.e. is anomalous behavior); and in response to detecting anomalous behavior, communicating an indication of the anomalous behavior on the given optical channel to a network controller (fig. 6 element 406 and paragraph 0102). Note: the claimed clustering step, and qualifying the detecting as “in a given cluster” is non-functional. The step of detecting anomalous behavior is based at least one derivative/integral of the metrics; the cluster per se is not an input to a detection function. Merely considering plural optical channels to be a cluster, in the abstract, meets the claim language.
Regarding claim 2, Zeng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the optical communication metrics comprise at least one of bit error rate (BER), pre-forward error correction BER, received signal strength, chromatic dispersion (CD), polarization dependent loss (PDL), optical signal to noise ratio (OSNR), and modulation technique (fig. 6 and paragraphs 0094-0095, where the CD measurements for discrete wavelengths reads on metrics for a plurality of channels).
Regarding claim 4, Zeng discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising sampling the optical communication metrics at a predetermined sampling rate (fig. 6 element 620 and paragraph 0102, the time to digital converter inherently has a predetermined sampling rate) and calculating respective derivatives of the optical communication metrics (paragraphs 0111-0116, the CD calculated as the derivative of the group delay on wavelength).
Regarding claim 6, Zeng discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the detecting anomalous behavior is based on the respective derivatives of the optical communication metrics (paragraphs 0111-0116, the CD calculated as the derivative of the group delay on wavelength, where dispersion creates waveform distortion, i.e. is anomalous behavior).
Regarding claim 10, Zeng discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising communicating to the network controller an identification of the given optical channel in the given cluster (fig. 6 element 406 and paragraph 0102).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (“Zeng”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0159638) in view of Ishihara et al. (“Ishihara”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0078765).
Regarding claim 3, Zeng discloses the method of claim 1, and while Zeng does not disclose that the clustering comprises calculating a centroid for the optical communication metrics, the extent of the limitation is the mathematical calculation per se. The centroid does not have a functional role in the method because anomaly detection is based on the derivative of the metrics, not involving a centroid. Ishihara disclose an example of calculating a centroid of a signal distribution (paragraph 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a centroid of a distribution of the chromatic dispersion values of Zeng for each waveband, since the centroid provides information about a center dispersion value for the respective waveband.
Claims 11, 12, 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0159638) in view of Flens (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0270750).
Regarding claim 11, Zeng disclose a device comprising: an interface configured to enable network communications (fig. 6 element 628 and paragraph 0123); one or more processors coupled to the interface (fig. 6 element 406 and paragraphs 0100-0102), and configured to: detect, at an optical terminal node, optical communication metrics for a plurality of optical channels (fig. 6 and paragraphs 0094-0095, where the CD measurements for discrete wavelengths reads on metrics for a plurality of channels); cluster optical channels in the plurality of optical channels according to the optical communication metrics to obtain a plurality of optical channel clusters (paragraph 0098, where the O, E, S, C and L bands reads on clusters); detect anomalous behavior of a given optical channel in a given cluster of the plurality of optical channel clusters based on a predetermined deviation of at least one of a derivative of the optical communication metrics and an integral of the derivative of the optical communication metrics (paragraphs 0111-0116, the CD calculated as the derivative of the group delay on wavelength, where dispersion creates waveform distortion, i.e. is anomalous behavior); and in response to detecting anomalous behavior, communicate an indication of the anomalous behavior on the given optical channel to a network controller (fig. 6 element 406 and paragraph 0102). Note: the claimed clustering step, and qualifying the detecting as “in a given cluster” is non-functional. The step of detecting anomalous behavior is based at least one derivative/integral of the metrics; the cluster per se is not an input to a detection function. Merely considering plural optical channels to be a cluster, in the abstract, meets the claim language.
Zeng does not disclose the controller/analyzer with a memory and the one or more processors coupled to the memory for the processor performing the functions. Flens discloses implementing a controller of an optical monitoring system as implemented by computer-readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (such as a memory) and executable by one or more processors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the controller and functions of Zeng using a processor plus executable instructions from memory since instructions provide the benefit of programmability.
Regarding claim 12, the combination Zeng and Flens discloses the device of claim 11, wherein the optical communication metrics comprise at least one of bit error rate (BER), pre-forward error correction BER, received signal strength, chromatic dispersion (CD), polarization dependent loss (PDL), optical signal to noise ratio (OSNR), and modulation technique (Zeng: fig. 6 and paragraphs 0094-0095, where the CD measurements for discrete wavelengths reads on metrics for a plurality of channels).
Regarding claim 14, the combination Zeng and Flens discloses the device of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to sample the optical communication metrics at a predetermined sampling rate (Zeng: fig. 6 element 620 and paragraph 0102, the time to digital converter inherently has a predetermined sampling rate) and calculate respective derivatives of the optical communication metrics (Zeng: paragraphs 0111-0116, the CD calculated as the derivative of the group delay on wavelength).
Regarding claim 16, the combination Zeng and Flens discloses the device of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to detect anomalous behavior based on the respective derivatives of the optical communication metrics (Zeng: paragraphs 0111-0116, the CD calculated as the derivative of the group delay on wavelength, where dispersion creates waveform distortion, i.e. is anomalous behavior).
Regarding claim 18, Zeng discloses a processor (fig. 6 element 406 and paragraphs 0100-0102) and steps to: detect, at an optical terminal node, optical communication metrics for a plurality of optical channels (fig. 6 and paragraphs 0094-0095, where the CD measurements for discrete wavelengths reads on metrics for a plurality of channels); cluster optical channels in the plurality of optical channels according to the optical communication metrics to obtain a plurality of optical channel clusters (paragraph 0098, where the O, E, S, C and L bands reads on clusters); detect anomalous behavior of a given optical channel in a given cluster of the plurality of optical channel clusters based on a predetermined deviation of at least one of a derivative of the optical communication metrics and an integral of the derivative of the optical communication metrics (paragraphs 0111-0116, the CD calculated as the derivative of the group delay on wavelength, where dispersion creates waveform distortion, i.e. is anomalous behavior); and in response to detecting anomalous behavior, communicate an indication of the anomalous behavior on the given optical channel to a network controller (fig. 6 element 406 and paragraph 0102). Note: the claimed clustering step, and qualifying the detecting as “in a given cluster” is non-functional. The step of detecting anomalous behavior is based at least one derivative/integral of the metrics; the cluster per se is not an input to a detection function. Merely considering plural optical channels to be a cluster, in the abstract, meets the claim language.
Zeng does not disclose one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps. Flens discloses implementing a controller of an optical monitoring system as implemented by computer-readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (such as a memory) and executable by one or more processors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the controller and functions of Zeng using a processor plus executable instructions from memory since instructions provide the benefit of programmability.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Zeng and Flens discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 18, wherein the optical communication metrics comprise at least one of bit error rate (BER), received signal strength, chromatic dispersion (CD), polarization dependent loss (PDL), optical signal to noise ratio (OSNR), and modulation technique (Zeng: fig. 6 and paragraphs 0094-0095, where the CD measurements for discrete wavelengths reads on metrics for a plurality of channels).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Zeng and Flens discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 18, wherein the instructions are configured to sample the optical communication metrics at a predetermined sampling rate (Zeng: fig. 6 element 620 and paragraph 0102, the time to digital converter inherently has a predetermined sampling rate), calculate respective derivatives of the optical communication metrics, and cluster based on the respective derivatives of the optical communication metrics (Zeng: paragraphs 0111-0116, the CD calculated as the derivative of the group delay on wavelength).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0159638) in view of Flens (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0270750) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ishihara (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0078765).
Regarding claim 13, the combination Zeng and Flens discloses the device of claim 11, and while the combination not disclose that the one or more processors are further configured to cluster by calculating a centroid for the optical communication metrics, the extent of the limitation is the mathematical calculation per se. The centroid does not have a functional role in the implementation because anomaly detection is based on the derivative of the metrics, not involving a centroid. Ishihara disclose an example of calculating a centroid of a signal distribution (paragraph 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a centroid of a distribution of the chromatic dispersion values of Zeng for each waveband, since the centroid provides information about a center dispersion value for the respective waveband.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Related monitoring/characterization – US Patent No. 6493116; US Patent Application Publication Nos. 2021/0306245, 2004/0213565, 2004/0170429.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights