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 2024-03-12 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 75-79 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 usedto 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.
Claims 75-79 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 (which depends from claim 1) of copending Application No. 18/604,258.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
With respect to claim 75 of the instant application, claim 75 is not patentably distinct from copending claim 24 (which depends from copending claim 1). The following chart shows the substantial similarity between instant claim 24 and reference claim 75. The substantially similar portions are underlined for convenience, the similarity limitations as underlined below:
Instant Application
Co-Pending Application No. 18/604,258
Claim 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 complaint Yang based communications from a controller that is not TR-485 complaint Yang based communications on a third interface.
Claim 1. 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) a virtual optical line terminal running on said server operably interconnected with said optical line terminal;
(d) said optical line terminal selectively receiving data from said virtual optical line terminal and sending data to said virtual optical line terminal when said virtual optical line terminal is available;
(e) said optical line terminal selectively receiving data from a core network in a manner bypassing said virtual optical line terminal and sending data to said core network in a manner bypassing said virtual optical line terminal when said virtual optical line terminal is not available, further based upon state information obtained from said virtual optical line terminal while said virtual optical line terminal is available.
Claim 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 complaint Yang based communications from a controller that is not TR-485 complaint Yang based communications on a third interface.
As shown in the comparison table above, instant claim 75 recites the same core limitations as copending claim 1 in combination with copending claim 24. In particular, both claim sets recite a PON optical line terminal (OLT) that communicates with ONTs/ONUs over optical fiber and cooperates with a vOMCI adapter and a vOMCI function to process and transport OMCI messages using TR-451-compliant management and message service interfaces, and further receives controller communications using TR-385-compliant YANG/NETCONF mechanisms. Therefore, instant claim 75 is an obvious variant of the copending claim set and is not patentably distinct from copending claim 24.
With respect to dependent claims 76–79 of the instant application, the only differences relative to claim 75 are: (i) claim 76 recites that the first messages include a callback and/or an API; (ii) claim 77 labels the first interface as a northbound interface of the vOMCI interface; (iii) claim 78 labels the second interface as a southbound interface of the vOMCI interface; and (iv) claim 79 labels the third interface as a northbound interface of the OLT.
With respect to claim 76, the additional limitation requiring that the first messages include a callback and/or an API is a conventional implementation detail for event-driven message handling and does not render the claim patentably distinct from the copending claim set.
With respect to claim 77, the additional limitation characterizing the first interface as a northbound interface of the vOMCI interface is merely interface labeling consistent with standards-based architectures and does not render the claim patentably distinct from the copending claim set.
With respect to claim 78, the additional limitation characterizing the second interface as a southbound interface of the vOMCI interface is merely interface labeling consistent with standards-based architectures and does not render the claim patentably distinct from the copending claim set.
With respect to claim 79, the additional limitation characterizing the third interface as a northbound interface of the optical line terminal is merely interface labeling consistent with standards-based architectures and does not render the claim patentably distinct from the copending claim set.
These limitations are conventional interface-labeling and implementation details used in standards-based network architectures and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art when implementing the same TR-451/TR-385 vOMCI system recited by the copending claim set. Therefore, dependent claims 75-79 do not add a patentably distinct inventive concept over copending claim 24. Accordingly, the differences between the instant claims and the copending claim set are minor variations/obvious design choices and do not render the claims patentably distinct; therefore, this nonstatutory double patenting rejection may be overcome only by the filing of a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). These differences are merely conventional implementation choices and interface labeling terminology used in standards-based network management architectures, and do not reflect a separate inventive concept that would render the instant claims patentably distinct from the copending claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL-The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 75 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (or, for pre-AIA applications, 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 75(f) requires that the third-interface controller and/or communications are “not TR-485 …”. The application as filed does not describe any TR-485 standard, TR-485 compliance criteria, or TR-485 YANG-based communications. Therefore, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the TR-485-related negative limitation, and does not teach a POSITA how to determine TR-485 compliance/non-compliance. In contrast, the application describes TR-385 and TR-451 compliant YANG-based communications. (See, e.g., Spec. [00103] – [00110], pp.13–14/55; Spec. [0067], p.8/55.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 75 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 75(f) recites:
“… receives TR-385 complaint Yang based communications from a controller that is not TR-485 complaint Yang based communications on a third interface …”
The limitation of claim 75(f) is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The term “TR-485” is not defined in the claims, is not explained in the specification, and does not have an objectively clear meaning in the context of the claim. Therefore, a POSITA cannot determine, with reasonable certainty, what communications are excluded by the negative limitation “not TR-485 … Yang based communications.”
The phrase “TR-385 complaint Yang based communications” is unclear as written. The word “complaint” appears to be a typographical error for “compliant,” but the claim must be amended to clearly recite the intended meaning.
The grammatical structure is unclear as to whether “not TR-485 …” modifies (i) the controller or (ii) the communications. Accordingly, the scope of the negative limitation is ambiguous.
The specification discusses TR-385 and TR-451 compliant YANG-based communications in the disclosed architecture, but does not disclose “TR-485.” For example:
Spec. [0067] incorporates TR-385 by reference: “TR-385 ITU-T PON YANG Modules, October 2020, incorporated by reference …” (Spec. [0067], p.8/55).
Spec. [00103] states vOMCI mode is described in TR-385: “vOMCI is based upon a mode described in TR-385 … PON YANG Modules …” (Spec. [00103], p.13/55).
Spec. [00109] describes a NETCONF controller including TR-385 compliant communications: “Netconf controller includes TR-385 compliant … Yang based communications …” (Spec. [00109], p.14/55).
Spec. [00110] describes communications to the pOLT northbound interface: “vOLT … includes TR-385 compliant Yang based communications … to the north bound interface … pOLT …” (Spec. [00110], p.14/55).
Spec. further describes TR-385 communications 902 to pOLT: “Netconf controller includes TR-385 compliant Yang based communications 902 to a north bound interface of a pOLT …” (p.16/55).
However, the specification contains no disclosure of “TR-485,” no description of TR-485 compliance criteria, and no description of TR-485 YANG-based communications. Accordingly, the recitation of “TR-485” in claim 75(f) renders claim 75 indefinite.
Additionally, the recitation of “TR-485” appears to be a typographical error (e.g., intended to be “TR-385”) or an otherwise undefined standard. Because the application fails to define “TR-485” or provide objective criteria for determining what constitutes “TR-485 … YANG-based communications,” the negative limitation is objectively unbounded and does not inform, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claim.
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 75-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., US 2022/0231907 A1, in view of TR-451 (vOMCI Specification), and in further view of TR-385 (YANG Modules), and further in view of Open Broadband – Broadband Access Abstraction (OB-BAA) Project v6.0.0 and BroadbandForum obbaa-polt-simulator (pOLT Simulator for Broadband Forum WT-451 vOMCI project).
Claim 75
Li teaches that WT-451 considers OMCI triggered by the MvOLTMF-vOMCI interface, but further teaches that some OMCI messages must be triggered from the OLT because the content is generated in the OLT and is not a configuration (e.g., time status OMCI), and that WT-451 lacks a mechanism to trigger the vOMCI function from the OLT. (Li ¶[0050]–¶[0051], p.10). Li states: “some OMCI messages need to be triggered from OLT, the content of which is generated in the OLT, for example, the content of a time status OMCI message” (Li ¶[0050], p.10). Therefore, Li teaches OLT-originated messages/content and triggering outside the WT-451 (MvOLTMF-vOMCI) YANG-triggered mechanism, corresponding to claim 75(c)’s first messages that are not TR-451-compliant YANG communications.
Li teaches sending a “content message” and an ONU list from the OLT to the cloud-side vOLTMF (and onward to the vOMCI function) through a NETCONF server or DMS in the OLT. (Li ¶[0059], p.11). This further supports that the OLT/vOMCI adapter handles messages/content distributed via NETCONF/DMS that are distinct from the TR-451 YANG management interface communications.
Li further teaches cloud-side vOLTMF/vOMCI function(s) and pOLT includes NETCONF Server/DMS used for communications with cloud-side functions; Li ¶ [0075]–¶[0076]; pOLT uses NETCONF Server/DMS to communicate with cloud-side management/functions via a server connection [Li ¶[0059], ¶[0075]–¶[0076] (pp.11, 16)]
Li does not expressly teach 451 teaches set forth the standardized TR-451 vOMCI management YANG interface and standardized TR-451 OMCI transport message service as recited However, in an analogue’s art, TR-451 teaches a standardized vOMCI message service (VomciMessageSbi) using gRPC RPCs to exchange vOMCI/encapsulated OMCI messages (including ListenForVomciRx and VomciTx), corresponding to the TR-451-compliant OMCI transport protocol communications on the second interface. (TR-451 §5.8.2.2, Fig. 30, p.69/113). TR-451 also teaches the vOMCI function is managed using the YANG-based management interface (MvOLTMF-vOMCI). (TR-451 §5.2.2.2, p.21/113).
TR-451 requires a YANG-based management interface between the vOLTMF and the vOMCI function (MvOLTMF-vOMCI) for configuration/state/notifications. TR-451 §5.2.2.2 (R-vOMCI_FUNC.60/.70/.80), PDF p.21/113.
MvOLTMF-vOMCI management interface is YANG-based for configuration/state/notifications (northbound management into vOMCI function) (TR-451 §5.2.2.2, p.21/113).
TR-451 defines the vOMCI message service (VomciMessageSbi) with RPCs (including ListenForVomciRx and VomciTx) for exchanging encapsulated OMCI messages between OLT/vOMCI proxy and vOMCI function. TR-451 §5.8.2.2, Fig. 30, PDF p.69/113.
TR-451 states: “rpc ListenForVomciRx (google.protobuf.Empty) returns (stream tr451_vomci_sbi_message.v1.VomciMessage) rpc VomciTx (tr451_vomci_sbi_message.v1.VomciMessage) returns (google.protobuf.Empty) Figure 30” (TR-451 §5.8.2.2, Fig. 30, p.69/113).
TR-451 does not expressly teach controller-to-OLT NETCONF/YANG communications for configuring OLT/ONU interfaces and data structures However, in an analogue’s art, TR-385 teaches the Management layer NETCONF client configures OLT/ONU interfaces and data structures (e.g., GEM ports, T-CONTs), corresponding to controller-to-OLT NETCONF/YANG communications over the OLT management interface. [TR-385 §4.2, p.19/68].
TR-385’s PON model is in the context of an ODN-based optical access network (fiber plant) in which the OLT terminates the ODN toward ONUs, consistent with optical fiber communications between OLT and ONTs/ONUs. [TR-385 p.12/68].
ODN-based optical access network where OLT terminates the ODN toward leaf ONUs (optical fiber plant) [TR-385 p.12/68].
controller NETCONF/YANG client configures OLT/ONU interface/data structures (management communications into OLT) [TR-385 §4.2, PDF p.19/68].
TR-385 states: “the Management layer NETCONF Client to configure the interfaces and other data structures between the OLT and the ONUs, such as GEM Ports, T-CONTs” [TR-385 §4.2, PDF p.19/68].
Further, OB-BAA teaches northbound interfaces and southbound adapter interfaces for access-device management, supporting predictable integration of standardized TR-451/TR-385 interfaces into Li’s architecture. [OB-BAA p.1/5]. OB-BAA states: “Northbound Interfaces (NBI), Core Components, Southbound Adapter Interfaces (SAI) and associated service elements for functions associated with the access network devices” [OB-BAA PDF p.1/5].
However, pOLT simulator states: “sysrepo2 generates a series of events that are forwarded waiting application(s) via registered callback functions. 3 Application response (OK or failure with error message)” [pOLT simulator p.8/11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to implement Li’s disclosed pOLT/vOMCI architecture using TR-451’s standardized YANG-based vOMCI management interface and TR-451’s standardized OMCI message service, and to manage/configure the OLT using TR-385 YANG modules via a NETCONF controller, because TR-451 and TR-385 are directed to interoperable, standards-based PON management. Incorporating these standardized interfaces into Li’s system would have been a predictable design choice that improves interoperability among multi-vendor components, reduces integration complexity, and yields predictable results consistent with the standards (KSR).
Claim 76
Claim 76 depends from claim 75 and further recites wherein the first messages received by the vOMCI adapter include a callback and/or an application programming interface (API)..
With respect to claim 76, all limitations of claim 75 are taught by Li in view of TR-451, TR-385, OB-BAA and pOLT Simulator except for the additional limitation of wherein the first messages received by the vOMCI adapter include a callback and/or an application programming interface (API). (Li ¶[0050], ¶[0075]–¶[0076]; TR-451 §5.2.2.2, p.21/113; TR-451 §5.8.2.2, Fig. 30, p.69/113; TR-385 §4.2, p.19/68; OB-BAA p.1/5).
However, the pOLT simulator describes sysrepo2 API/event processing where datastore events are delivered to applications through registered callback functions, evidencing callback-driven processing of NETCONF/YANG events/messages. [pOLT simulator PDF p.8/11]
NETCONF/YANG datastore events delivered to applications via registered callback handlers (API/event mechanism) [pOLT simulator PDF p.8/11].
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the vOMCI adapter’s receipt/processing of the first messages using a callback and/or an API, because event-driven callbacks and well-defined APIs are conventional software techniques for connecting NETCONF/YANG datastore events to application logic and service interfaces. Using callbacks/APIs would have predictably improved modularity and maintainability of the message-handling pipeline without changing the underlying function (KSR).
Claim 77
Claim 77 depends from claim 75 and further recites wherein the first interface is a northbound interface of the vOMCI interface (vOMCI function)..
With respect to claim 77, all limitations of claim 75 are taught by Li in view of TR-451, TR-385, OB-BAA and pOLT Simulator except for the additional limitation of wherein the first interface is a northbound interface of the vOMCI interface (vOMCI function). [Li ¶[0076]; TR-451 §5.2.2.2, p.21/113; TR-451 §5.8.2.2, Fig. 30, p.69/113; TR-385 §4.2, p.19/68; OB-BAA p.1/5].
However, TR-451 teaches standardized management into the vOMCI function via the YANG-based MvOLTMF-vOMCI interface (management plane entry into vOMCI), which a POSITA would implement as the vOMCI function’s northbound interface. [TR-451 §5.2.2.2, p.21/113].
MvOLTMF-vOMCI YANG-based management interface into the vOMCI function (northbound management) [TR-451 §5.2.2.2, PDF p.21/113].
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement and characterize the TR-451 YANG-based management interface into the vOMCI function as the vOMCI function’s northbound interface, because it is the upstream management/control-plane entry point from the vOLTMF or other management entities. Using the standard northbound designation is a routine architectural convention in network management and yields predictable interoperability (KSR).
Claim 78
Claim 78 depends from claim 75 and further recites wherein the second interface is a southbound interface of the vOMCI interface (vOMCI function)..
With respect to claim 78, all limitations of claim 75 are taught by Li in view of TR-451, TR-385, OB-BAA and pOLT Simulator except for the additional limitation of wherein the second interface is a southbound interface of the vOMCI interface (vOMCI function). [Li ¶[0076]; TR-451 §5.2.2.2, p.21/113; TR-451 §5.8.2.2, Fig. 30, p.69/113; TR-385 §4.2, p.19/68; OB-BAA p.1/5].
However, TR-451 teaches the vOMCI message service (VomciMessageSbi) exchanges encapsulated OMCI messages between OLT/vOMCI proxy and vOMCI function (traffic toward access-network elements), which a POSITA would implement as the vOMCI function’s southbound interface. [TR-451 §5.8.2.2, Fig. 30, PDF p.69/113].
VomciMessageSbi OMCI transport service from vOMCI function toward OLT/ONU elements (southbound) [TR-451 §5.8.2.2, Fig. 30, PDF p.69/113].
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement and characterize the TR-451 vOMCI Message Service (VomciMessageSbi) as the vOMCI function’s southbound interface, because it carries OMCI-related traffic toward access-network elements (OLT/ONU) and is explicitly defined as a southbound service interface in the TR-451 architecture. Implementing it as the southbound interface aligns with standard terminology and yields predictable communications behavior (KSR).
Claim 79
Claim 79 depends from claim 75 and further recites wherein the third interface is a northbound interface of the optical line terminal..
With respect to claim 79, all limitations of claim 75 are taught by Li in view of TR-451, TR-385, OB-BAA and pOLT Simulator except for the additional limitation of wherein the third interface is a northbound interface of the optical line terminal. [Li ¶[0076]; TR-451 §5.2.2.2, PDF p.21/113; TR-451 §5.8.2.2, Fig. 30, PDF p.69/113; TR-385 §4.2, PDF p.19/68; OB-BAA PDF p.1/5].
However, TR-385 teaches controller-to-OLT NETCONF/YANG communications used to configure OLT/ONU interfaces and other data structures; a POSITA would understand these management communications occur over the OLT’s management interface, i.e., the OLT’s northbound interface. [TR-385 §4.2, PDF p.19/68].
controller NETCONF/YANG client communicates to and configures the OLT via its management interface (northbound) [TR-385 §4.2, PDF p.19/68].
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement and characterize the controller-to-OLT TR-385 NETCONF/YANG interface as the OLT’s northbound interface, because it is the OLT’s management interface facing upstream control/management systems. This characterization follows standard network management conventions and yields predictable results in a standards-based PON management architecture (KSR).
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