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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Applicant's election without traverse of Group 1 and claims 21-39 in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 39 is missing the period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 21-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krampl et al (US Pub 20230208542) in view of Weeber et al (US Pub 20190356389).
Regarding claim 21. Krampl discloses an apparatus configured to:
determine information defining an extended delimiter for a physical synchronization block of a burst mode transmission, wherein the extended delimiter is based on concatenation of at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments of at least one physical synchronization block segment, wherein two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments have non-zero length (Fig 1a, Fig 2c, where an OLT (300) determines information (e.g. a preamble configuration message) defining an extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) (as shown in Fig 2c) for a physical synchronization block (e.g. 20b) of a burst mode transmission, where the extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) is based on concatenation of at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24) of at least one physical synchronization block segment (e.g. Preamble and Delimiter), where two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) have non-zero length); and
send, toward a transceiver, a set of management messages including the information defining the extended delimiter (Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the OLT (300) sends, toward a transceiver (e.g. ONU 100), a set of management messages including the information (e.g. a preamble configuration message) defining the extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) (e.g. step 110)).
Krampl fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform functions.
However, Weeber discloses
an apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform functions (Fig 2, para [26] where an OLT (200) comprises at least one processor (230) and at least one memory (220) with instructions that when executed by the at least one processor (230) cause the OLT (200) to perform functions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the OLT (300) as described in Krampl, with the teachings of the OLT (200) as described in Weeber. The motivation being is that as shown an OLT (200) comprises at least one processor (230) and at least one memory (220) with instructions that when executed by the at least one processor (230) cause the OLT (200) to perform functions and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the OLT (300) as described in Krampl and better show and illustrate that the OLT (300) comprises at least one processor (230) and at least one memory (220) with instructions that when executed by the at least one processor (230) cause the OLT (300) to perform functions i.e. because the OLT (300) uses a processor and memory in order to optimally perform all the functions and communicate with the ONU (100) and where such processor and memory operates and controls the OLT (300) by performing computations, control and storage in a faster and more efficient manner and which combination is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. OLTs,…) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of OLT (200) into other similar OLT (300), namely, for better clarifying its operation/configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 22. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the information defining the extended delimiter comprises, for each of the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments, a respective indication of a length of the physical synchronization block sub-segment and a respective indication of a bit pattern for the physical synchronization block sub-segment (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the information (e.g. a preamble configuration message) defining the extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) comprises, for each of the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26), a respective indication of a length of the physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) and a respective indication of a bit pattern for the physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) (paras [30][31][36])).
Regarding claim 23. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the apparatus is configured to be disposed within a passive optical network, wherein the set of management messages comprises at least one physical layer operations administration and maintenance (PLOAM) message (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the OLT (300) is configured to be disposed within a passive optical network (as shown in Fig 1a), and where the set of management messages from the OLT (300) to the ONU (100) is known to comprise at least one physical layer operations administration and maintenance (PLOAM) message (see Cheng (US Pub 20250293772) Fig 1, para [23])).
Regarding claim 24. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the apparatus is configured to be disposed within a passive optical network, wherein the set of management message comprises, for each of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments, a respective physical layer operations administration and maintenance (PLOAM) message for the respective physical synchronization block segment (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the OLT (300) is configured to be disposed within a passive optical network (as shown in Fig 1a), and where the set of management messages from the OLT (300) to the ONU (100) for each of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24) is known to comprise a respective physical layer operations administration and maintenance (PLOAM) message (see Cheng (US Pub 20250293772) Fig 1, para [23])).
Regarding claim 25. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments belong to a same one of the at least one physical synchronization block segment (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24) belong to a same one of the at least one physical synchronization block segment (e.g. Preamble and Delimiter)).
Regarding claim 26. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments belong to different ones of the at least one physical synchronization block segment (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) belong to different ones of the at least one physical synchronization block segment (e.g. Preamble and Delimiter)).
Regarding claim 27. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the at least one physical synchronization block segment includes a first physical synchronization block segment and a second physical synchronization block segment, wherein the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments include a first physical synchronization block sub-segment belonging to the first physical synchronization block segment and a second physical synchronization block sub-segment belonging to the second physical synchronization block segment (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the at least one physical synchronization block segment (e.g. Preamble and Delimiter) includes a first physical synchronization block segment (e.g. Preamble 2 and Delimiter D2) and a second physical synchronization block segment (e.g. Preamble 3 and Delimiter D3), wherein the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) include a first physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. 23, 24) belonging to the first physical synchronization block segment (e.g. Preamble 2 and Delimiter D2) and a second physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. 25, 26) belonging to the second physical synchronization block segment (e.g. Preamble 3 and Delimiter D3)).
Regarding claim 28. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments include at least two delimiter sub-segments (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) include at least two delimiter sub-segments (e.g. 24 and 26)).
Regarding claim 29. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments include at least one preamble sub-segment and at least one delimiter sub-segment (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) include at least one preamble sub-segment (e.g. 23, 25) and at least one delimiter sub-segment (e.g. 24, 26)).
Regarding claim 30. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments include at least two preamble sub-segments (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) include at least two preamble sub-segments (e.g. 23 and 25)).
Regarding claim 31. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein, for each of the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments, the respective physical synchronization block sub-segment is defined to include a respective bit pattern characteristic of a delimiter bit pattern and configured for use as a respective portion of the extended delimiter (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where for each of the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) , the respective physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) is defined to include a respective bit pattern/sequence characteristic of a delimiter bit pattern/sequence (e.g. at 24, 26) (para [38]) and configured for use as a respective portion of the extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)).
Regarding claim 32. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the extended delimiter comprises a 96-bit delimiter based on concatenation of a 32-bit physical synchronization block sub-segment and a 64-bit physical synchronization block sub-segment (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2b, Fig 2c, where an extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24) (as shown in Fig 2b) comprises a delimiter based on concatenation of a physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. delimiter D1 22) and a physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. delimiter D2 24) and where it is known that a delimiter can be 32 bits or 64 bits in order to reduce errors in a burst signal (see ITU-T G.987.2 (02/2023), Appendix III, Table III.1, page 25) and thus if delimiter D1 22 is 32 bits and delimiter D2 24 is 64 bits the result is 96 bits).
Regarding claim 33. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the extended delimiter comprises a 128-bit delimiter based on concatenation of a first 64-bit physical synchronization block sub-segment and a second 64-bit physical synchronization block sub-segment (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2b, Fig 2c, where an extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24) (as shown in Fig 2b) comprises a delimiter based on concatenation of a physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. delimiter D1 22) and a physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. delimiter D2 24) and where it is known that a delimiter can be 64 bits in order to reduce errors in a burst signal (see ITU-T G.987.2 (02/2023), Appendix III, Table III.1, page 25) and thus if delimiter D1 22 is 64 bits and delimiter D2 24 is 64 bits the result is 128 bits).
Regarding claim 34. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the extended delimiter comprises an M×N bit delimiter, wherein M comprises a number of sub-segments in the two or more of the at least two sub-segments and N comprises a number of bits per sub-segment in the two or more of the at least two sub-segments (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) comprises an M (e.g. 3) × N (e.g. 64 bits) delimiter, wherein M (e.g. 3) comprises a number of sub-segments (i.e. Preambles and Delimiters) in the two or more of the at least two sub-segments (e.g. 21, 22 or 23, 24 or 25, 26) and N (e.g. 64 bits) comprises a number of delimiter bits (i.e. at 22, 24, 26) (as shown in ITU-T G.987.2 (02/2023), Appendix III, Table III.1, page 25) per sub-segment in the two or more of the at least two sub-segments (e.g. 21, 22 or 23, 24 or 25, 26).
Regarding claim 35. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive a bit stream of a burst mode transmission, wherein the burst mode transmission includes a burst payload and the extended delimiter; and recover, based on identification of the burst mode transmission using the extended delimiter, the burst payload (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the OLT (300) is configured to receive a bit stream of a burst mode transmission from an ONU (100), wherein the burst mode transmission includes a burst payload (e.g. PHY BURST PAYLOAD 27) and the extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) and is configured to recover, based on identification of the burst mode transmission using the extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26), the burst payload (e.g. PHY BURST PAYLOAD 27)).
Regarding claim 36. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein, for each of the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments, the respective physical synchronization block sub-segment includes a respective bit pattern for use as a respective portion of the extended delimiter (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where for each of the two or more of the at least two physical synchronization block sub-segments (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26), the respective physical synchronization block sub-segment (e.g. 23, 24 or 25, 26) includes a respective bit pattern/sequence (e.g. at 24, 26) (para [38]) for use as a respective portion of the extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)).
Regarding claim 37. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the information defining the extended delimiter is configured for use by the transceiver when transmitting the burst mode transmission (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the information (e.g. a preamble configuration message) defining the extended delimiter (e.g. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) is configured for use by the transceiver (e.g. ONU 100) when transmitting the burst mode transmission).
Regarding claim 38. Krampl as modified by Weeber also discloses, wherein the apparatus comprises an optical line terminal or an optical network unit (Krampl Fig 1a, Fig 1b, Fig 2c, where the OLT (100) comprises an optical line terminal (OLT)).
Regarding claim 39. Claim 39 is similar to claim 21, therefore, claim 39 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. 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.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 26
Prosecution Insights