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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/19/2024, 07/16/2025, and 12/19/2025 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: both contain numbers within the text of the claim (i.e. “5” in claim 1 and “10” in claim 17).
Claim 1 is further objected to because “configuration” in the third to last line of the claim needs a comma after it (the previous comma appears to have been deleted).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
NOTE: In order to promote compact prosecution, prior art will be applied for all claim limitations as appropriate, even when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) does not require certain contingent or alternative limitations present in claims. However, this should not be taken as an acknowledgement that the BRI and therefore the scope of claims with such limitations are different than as discussed below.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim explicitly recites that the two clauses of the claim can be performed in the alternative (this is also present in independent claim 17). Therefore, dependent claims that further limit only one of the clauses would not be included in the BRI for when the other clause would be performed (e.g. claim 4 only further limits the second clause; therefore, art which teaches the first clause being performed would automatically teach claim 4). Based upon the current claim language, it appears that dependent claims 4-6 only limit the second clause. It is possible that dependent claims 2 and 3 only limit the first clause; however, this is not clear due to issues discussed further below.
Regarding claim 9, the method claim contains two sets of alternative limitations contingent on different factors (i.e. (1) the second optical module being able to receive and demodulate a response message and (2) there being not bit error in data streams). However, these recitations are not required to carry out the claimed invention and according to MPEP 2111.04, II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See also Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Therefore, the BRI of claim 9 would only have one of each set of the alternative limitations.
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 1-17, 19, and 21 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 17, as noted above, both contain two clauses that are recited as possibly being performed in the alternative. However, the second clause makes reference to “the configuration message” which has only been recited in the first clause. Therefore, it appears that the first clause would need to have occurred at some point prior to the second clause being performed leading to a contradiction. A way to overcome this would be to introduce a second instance of “configuration signal” similar to response message for the second clause. Dependent claims 2-9 and 21 do not cure claim 1 of this issue and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, the first clause of the claim gives a scenario for contingent on (“in response to”) “the second optical module not receiving the response message returned from the first optical module or being incapable of correctly demodulating the response message”. However, both clauses of claim 1 on which claim 9 depends recite that the second optical module receives the response message and it is implied that it is able to demodulate the response message since the second optical module performs operations subsequent to receiving it. Therefore, claim 9 appears to contradict or improperly change the scope of claim 1. Furthermore, stating that the response message is returned appears to not make sense as neither clause in claim 1 indicates that the response message is specifically “returned” instead of just merely being transmitted by the first optical module.
Regarding independent claim 10, line 6 refers to “returning” a response message via a first optical module and line 10 refers to a data stream “returned’ from the second optical module. However, based upon the Specification, it appears that such signals are merely sent by the respective modules and using the term “return” for both leads to confusion (e.g. the data stream is actually returned via the loopback of the first optical module, so it would not make sense for the second optical module to have also “returned” the same data stream). Dependent claims 11-16 and 19 do not cure claim 10 of these issues and are similar rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-4, 7-13, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharadwaj et al, U.S. Patent No. 10,243,823 in view of Yang et al, WO 2020/074007 A1 (citations will be given to U.S. Publication No. 2022/0007092 which is an official translation of the reference).
Regarding claim 1, Bharadwaj teaches a method for fault location, comprising at least one of:
sending, by a second optical module (see Bharadwaj Figure 3A, switch port 50 with optical transceiver 54), a configuration message (see Figure 4, step 91 referring to a handshake and column 10, “In step 91, the generator initiates the link diagnostic mode protocol handshake with the peer port to force it into a reflector mode”), to a first optical module (see Figure 3A, HBA port 52 with optical transceiver 64), receiving, by the second optical module, a response message from the first optical module (see column 10, “In response to a command sent by the generator, the peer port indicates whether it supports the link diagnostic mode protocol, along with port generator/reflector capabilities”), and performing fault location according to the response message for the configuration message (see column 10, “Referring now to FIG. 4, illustrated therein is a high-level, simplified flowchart of embodiments described herein. In one embodiment, a proprietary link diagnostic protocol may be used to coordinate performance loopback tests between a generator and a reflector port to verify and isolate connectivity faults”), 5 [sic] wherein the response message is a response message sent to the second optical module to confirm a loopback configuration is successful, after the first optical module receives the configuration message from the second optical module and the first optical module configures the loopback configuration (see column 10, “During the discovery phase (Phase 1), the roles and loopback capabilities of the two ends of the link are determined (step 93). During the loopback phase (Phase 2), the actual loopback tests are performed with traffic and the overall health of the connection is determined (step 94). All supported loopback tests may be performed during this phase”); and/or,
sending a data stream to a first optical module after a second optical module receives a response message from the first optical module (see column 11, “The actual content of the frames sent during the test is generator port implementation specific. The reflector typically does not care about it since it should be working mostly in a signal loopback mode. Since all normal switch port operations stand suspended there are no restrictions on bandwidth consumption on the port and shall be tested for Line Rate (100%) traffic by default”), receiving, by the second optical module, a data stream returned from the first optical module, and performing fault location according to the data stream returned (see column 11, “If in any of the test stages the generator port does not receive back any of the frames it sends out or receives back any of the frames with errors, the test is considered a failure and a connectivity fault is recorded for that stage (step 95)”), wherein the response message is a response message sent to the second optical module to confirm a loopback configuration is successful, after the first optical module receives the configuration message from the second optical module and the first optical module configures the loopback configuration (see Figure 4, step 91 wherein the messages sent in the “handshake” apply here).
Bharadwaj does not expressively teach wherein the second optical module is located in an active wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) device, and the first optical module is located in an active antenna unit (AAU).
However, Yang in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method involving a second optical module (see Yang Figure 1, terminal device 1 and paragraph [0046]) and a first optical module (see Figure 1, central office device and paragraph [0046]) configured to enter into a loopback configuration (see paragraph [0048]) as taught in Bharadwaj wherein
he second optical module is located in an active wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) device, and the first optical module is located in an active antenna unit (AAU) (see paragraph [0046]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the modules of Bharadwaj with a WDM device and AAU as taught in Yang to yield the predictable results of successfully sending optical data and performing diagnostic tests.
Regarding claim 2, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches after the second optical module receives the response message for the configuration message via a receiver optical subassembly (ROSA) (see Bharadwaj Figure 3A, Rx in optical transceiver 54 directly connected to Tx in optical transceiver 64 which implies that the handshake of Figure 4 is done optically), demodulating the response message via a control unit of the second optical module, and confirming the loopback is successful according to the response message (see Bharadwaj Figure 3A, MAC 58 and column 5, “In the Rx path on the switch port, signals are converted to frames in the MAC block and passed higher up to perform switching functions on the frame” and column 10, “Before a port can be configured into link diagnostic mode, it is critical to know whether the peer port is able to support the link diagnostic mode protocol. The optional preparatory capability check phase (Phase 0) may be used for this purpose (step 92). In response to a command sent by the generator, the peer port indicates whether it supports the link diagnostic mode protocol, along with port generator/reflector capabilities. An attempt to configure diagnostics mode on ports where the capability check indicates that the port does not include those capabilities results in a configuration error”).
Regarding claim 3, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the response message for the configuration message is an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) message (see Yang paragraph [0048] as combined with Bharadwaj Figure 4, step 91).
Bharadwaj in view of Yang does not expressively teach the OAM is low frequency. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the generic OAM of Bharadwaj in view of Yang with a low frequency OAM as claimed to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting the response message and setting up the loopback.
Regarding claim 4, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein sending the data stream and receiving the data stream returned comprises:
sending the data stream according to a control instruction from a control unit of the second optical module; and
receiving, the data stream returned after the loopback of the first optical module (see Bharadwaj Figure 3A, MAC 58 and column 10, “A traffic generator on a switch MAC is used to generate loopback test traffic with different FC frame sizes and at up to 100% of the traffic rate of the port. Frames reflected back are verified by collector logic for correctness and to determine whether all sent frames are received back unchanged”).
Regarding claim 7, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the second optical module comprises a control unit and a main control unit (see Bharadwaj Figure 5A, “forwarding ASIC” to “MAC ASIC” in “F-port”)
wherein sending, by the second optical module, the configuration message, to the first optical module comprises: generating a loopback configuration instruction and sending the configuration message to the first optical module after loading the configuration message according to the loopback configuration instruction (see Bharadwaj column 11, “This phase can be entered only after the discovery phase has successfully completed and the generator and reflector ports are in operationally “Up” state. A typical loopback test between a switch port and HBA may proceed as follows:
(52) Stage 1: HBA Deep (FC Driver) Remote Loopback.
(53) Stage 2: HBA MAC Remote Loopback.
(54) Stage 3: HBA Transceiver Optical Remote Loopback.
(55) Stage 4: Switch port Transceiver Electrical Loopback and Deep Local Loopback” which indicates that different types of loopbacks are performed, implying different configuration messages based on a loopback configuration instruction specific to each test occurs).
Bharadwaj in view of Yang does not expressively teach
wherein sending, by the second optical module, the configuration message, to the first optical module comprises:
receiving, by [the] control unit of the second optical module, [the] loopback configuration instruction from [the] main control unit of the second optical module.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to have the loopback configuration instruction come from the main control unit to the control unit of Bharadwaj in view of Yang thereby reducing the load of each control unit in the second module.
Regarding claim 8, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the configuration message is an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) message (see Yang paragraph [0048] as combined with Bharadwaj Figure 4, step 91).
Bharadwaj in view of Yang does not expressively teach the OAM is low frequency. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the generic OAM of Bharadwaj in view of Yang with a low frequency OAM as claimed to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting the configuration message and setting up the loopback.
Regarding claim 9, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein performing, by the second optical module, fault location comprises:
in response to the second optical module not receiving the response message returned from the first optical module or being incapable of correctly demodulating the response message, determining that there is a fault risk at one or a combination of a transmission link and a device between the active WDM device and the AAU, an AAU wireless device or an optical module (as noted above, this contradicts claim 1);
in response to the second optical module being capable of receiving and correctly demodulating the response message returned from the first optical module, determining that a transmission link and a device between the active WDM device and the AAU have a connectivity (this is implied by the switch port 50 of Bharadwaj Figure 3A performing steps subsequent to Figure 4, step 91);
in response to there being no bit error for a data stream sent by the second optical module and a data stream received by the second optical module, determining that a transmission link and a device between the active WDM device and the AAU are normal; and
in response to there being a bit error for a data stream sent by the second optical module and a data stream received by the second optical module, determining that there is a degraded performance of a transmission link and a device between the active WDM device and the AAU (see Bharadwaj column 11, “If in any of the test stages the generator port does not receive back any of the frames it sends out or receives back any of the frames with errors, the test is considered a failure and a connectivity fault is recorded for that stage (step 95)”).
Regarding claim 10, Bharadwaj teaches a method for fault location, comprising:
receiving, by a first optical module (see Bharadwaj Figure 3A, HBA port 52 with optical transceiver 64), a configuration message from a second optical module (see Figure 3A, switch port 50 with optical transceiver 54; Figure 4, step 91 referring to a handshake; and column 10, “In step 91, the generator initiates the link diagnostic mode protocol handshake with the peer port to force it into a reflector mode”),
after the first optical module configures a loopback configuration according to the configuration message (see column 10, “During the discovery phase (Phase 1), the roles and loopback capabilities of the two ends of the link are determined (step 93). During the loopback phase (Phase 2), the actual loopback tests are performed with traffic and the overall health of the connection is determined (step 94). All supported loopback tests may be performed during this phase”), returning a response message for the configuration message to confirm the loopback configuration is successful (see Figure 4, handshake in step 91 and column 10, “In response to a command sent by the generator, the peer port indicates whether it supports the link diagnostic mode protocol, along with port generator/reflector capabilities… During the discovery phase (Phase 1), the roles and loopback capabilities of the two ends of the link are determined (step 93). During the loopback phase (Phase 2), the actual loopback tests are performed with traffic and the overall health of the connection is determined (step 94). All supported loopback tests may be performed during this phase. This phase can be entered only after the discovery phase has successfully completed and the generator and reflector ports are in operationally “Up” state”), wherein the response message is configured for the second optical module to perform fault location according to the response message for the configuration message (see column 10, “Referring now to FIG. 4, illustrated therein is a high-level, simplified flowchart of embodiments described herein. In one embodiment, a proprietary link diagnostic protocol may be used to coordinate performance loopback tests between a generator and a reflector port to verify and isolate connectivity faults”);
receiving, by the first optical module, a data stream returned from the second optical module (see column 11, “The actual content of the frames sent during the test is generator port implementation specific. The reflector typically does not care about it since it should be working mostly in a signal loopback mode. Since all normal switch port operations stand suspended there are no restrictions on bandwidth consumption on the port and shall be tested for Line Rate (100%) traffic by default”); and
returning, by the first optical module, the data stream based on a loopback mechanism to cause the second optical module to perform fault location according to the data stream returned (see column 11, “If in any of the test stages the generator port does not receive back any of the frames it sends out or receives back any of the frames with errors, the test is considered a failure and a connectivity fault is recorded for that stage (step 95)”).
Bharadwaj does not expressively teach wherein the second optical module is located in an active wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) device, and the first optical module is located in an active antenna unit (AAU).
However, Yang in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method involving a second optical module (see Yang Figure 1, terminal device 1 and paragraph [0046]) and a first optical module (see Figure 1, central office device and paragraph [0046]) configured to enter into a loopback configuration (see paragraph [0048]) as taught in Bharadwaj wherein
he second optical module is located in an active wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) device, and the first optical module is located in an active antenna unit (AAU) (see paragraph [0046]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the modules of Bharadwaj with a WDM device and AAU as taught in Yang to yield the predictable results of successfully sending optical data and performing diagnostic tests.
Regarding claim 11, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein receiving, by the first optical module, the configuration message from the second optical module comprises:
after the first optical module receives the configuration message via a receiver optical subassembly (ROSA) (see Bharadwaj Figure 3A, Rx in optical transceiver 64 directly connected to Tx in optical transceiver 54 which implies the handshake of Figure 4 is done optically), demodulating the configuration message via a control unit of the first optical module (see Bharadwaj Figure 3A, MAC 68 and column 5, “In the Rx path on the switch port, signals are converted to frames in the MAC block and passed higher up to perform switching functions on the frame” which can be applied to the MAC of the HBA port 52).
Regarding claim 12, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the configuration message is an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) message (see Yang paragraph [0048] as combined with Bharadwaj Figure 4, step 91).
Bharadwaj in view of Yang does not expressively teach the OAM is low frequency. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the generic OAM of Bharadwaj in view of Yang with a low frequency OAM as claimed to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting the configuration message and setting up the loopback.
Regarding claim 17, Bharadwaj teaches a second optical module (see Bharadwaj Figure 3A, switch port 50) comprising:
a processor (see Figure 8, processor 192 and column 16, “Turning to FIG. 8, FIG. 8 illustrates a simplified block diagram of an example machine (or apparatus) 190, which in certain embodiments may be a server or a switch, that may be implemented in embodiments described herein. The example machine 190 corresponds to network elements and computing devices that may be deployed in a communications network”), configured to read a program in a memory, to perform at least one operation (see column 17, “Processor 192, which may also be referred to as a central processing unit (“CPU”), can include any general or special-purpose processor capable of executing machine readable instructions and performing operations on data as instructed by the machine-readable instructions. Main memory 193 may be directly accessible to processor 192 for accessing machine instructions”) of:
sending a configuration message (see Figure 4, step 91 referring to a handshake and column 10, “In step 91, the generator initiates the link diagnostic mode protocol handshake with the peer port to force it into a reflector mode”) to a first optical module (see Figure 3A, HBA port 52 with optical transceiver 64), receiving, by the second optical module, a response message from the first optical module (see column 10, “In response to a command sent by the generator, the peer port indicates whether it supports the link diagnostic mode protocol, along with port generator/reflector capabilities”), and performing fault location 10 [sic] according to the response message for the configuration message (see column 10, “Referring now to FIG. 4, illustrated therein is a high-level, simplified flowchart of embodiments described herein. In one embodiment, a proprietary link diagnostic protocol may be used to coordinate performance loopback tests between a generator and a reflector port to verify and isolate connectivity faults”), wherein the response message is a response message sent to the second optical module to confirm a loopback configuration is successful, after the first optical module receives the configuration message from the second optical module and the first optical module configures the loopback configuration (see column 10, “During the discovery phase (Phase 1), the roles and loopback capabilities of the two ends of the link are determined (step 93). During the loopback phase (Phase 2), the actual loopback tests are performed with traffic and the overall health of the connection is determined (step 94). All supported loopback tests may be performed during this phase”); and/or,
sending a data stream to a first optical module after a second optical module receives a response message from the first optical module (see column 11, “The actual content of the frames sent during the test is generator port implementation specific. The reflector typically does not care about it since it should be working mostly in a signal loopback mode. Since all normal switch port operations stand suspended there are no restrictions on bandwidth consumption on the port and shall be tested for Line Rate (100%) traffic by default”), receiving, by the second optical module, a data stream returned from the first optical module, and performing fault location according to the data stream returned (see column 11, “If in any of the test stages the generator port does not receive back any of the frames it sends out or receives back any of the frames with errors, the test is considered a failure and a connectivity fault is recorded for that stage (step 95)”), wherein the response message is a response message sent to the second optical module to confirm a loopback configuration is successful, after the first optical module receives the configuration message from the second optical module and the first optical module configures the loopback configuration (see Figure 4, step 91 wherein the messages sent in the “handshake” apply here);and
a transceiver, configured to receive and transmit data under a control of the processor (see Figure 3A, optical transceiver 54).
Bharadwaj does not expressively teach that the second optical module is located in an active wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) device, wherein the first optical module is located in an active antenna unit (AAU).
However, Yang in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method involving a second optical module (see Yang Figure 1, terminal device 1 and paragraph [0046]) and a first optical module (see Figure 1, central office device and paragraph [0046]) configured to enter into a loopback configuration (see paragraph [0048]) as taught in Bharadwaj wherein
he second optical module is located in an active wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) device, and the first optical module is located in an active antenna unit (AAU) (see paragraph [0046]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the modules of Bharadwaj with a WDM device and AAU as taught in Yang to yield the predictable results of successfully sending optical data and performing diagnostic tests.
Regarding claim 19, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches an optical module, located in an active antenna unit (AAU) (see Yang paragraph [0046]), comprising:
a processor (see Bharadwaj Figure 8, processor 192 and column 16, “Turning to FIG. 8, FIG. 8 illustrates a simplified block diagram of an example machine (or apparatus) 190, which in certain embodiments may be a server or a switch, that may be implemented in embodiments described herein. The example machine 190 corresponds to network elements and computing devices that may be deployed in a communications network”), configured to read a program in a memory, to perform the method of claim 10 (see Bharadwaj column 17, “Processor 192, which may also be referred to as a central processing unit (“CPU”), can include any general or special-purpose processor capable of executing machine readable instructions and performing operations on data as instructed by the machine-readable instructions. Main memory 193 may be directly accessible to processor 192 for accessing machine instructions”); and
a transceiver, configured to receive and transmit data (see Bharadwaj Figure 3A, optical transceiver 64).
Regarding claim 21, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see Bharadwaj Figure 8, main memory 193 and column 16, “Turning to FIG. 8, FIG. 8 illustrates a simplified block diagram of an example machine (or apparatus) 190, which in certain embodiments may be a server or a switch, that may be implemented in embodiments described herein. The example machine 190 corresponds to network elements and computing devices that may be deployed in a communications network”) storing a computer program, which performs the method of claim 1 (see Bharadwaj column 17, “Processor 192, which may also be referred to as a central processing unit (“CPU”), can include any general or special-purpose processor capable of executing machine readable instructions and performing operations on data as instructed by the machine-readable instructions. Main memory 193 may be directly accessible to processor 192 for accessing machine instructions”).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharadwaj et al, U.S. Patent No. 10,243,823 in view of Yang et al, WO 2020/074007 A1 (citations will be given to U.S. Publication No. 2022/0007092 which is an official translation of the reference) and Zeng et al, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0140738.
Regarding claim 5, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but does not expressively teach wherein the data stream is a pseudo random binary sequence (PRBS) code stream.
However, Zeng in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method involving a first and second optical module (see Zeng Figure 1, network infrastructure 111 and optical module 107 and paragraph [0015]) configured to send a data stream during a loopback configuration (see Figure 2, which is an embodiment of field reader 101 connected to optical module 107 of Figure 1, signal generator 205 and paragraph [0018]) as taught in Bharadwaj in view of Yang wherein
the data stream is a pseudo random binary sequence (PRBS) code stream (see paragraph [0018]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the generic data stream of Bharadwaj in view of Yang with that of Zeng to yield the predictable results of successfully testing the system.
Regarding claim 6, Bharadwaj in view of Yang and Zeng teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches wherein the PRBS code stream is a data stream in a message frame for optical module service offline detection (see Zeng paragraph [0018] as combined with Bharadwaj column 10, “A traffic generator on a switch MAC is used to generate loopback test traffic with different FC frame sizes and at up to 100% of the traffic rate of the port” wherein if 100% of the traffic rate is a test frame, this effectively is offline testing as no traffic is sent).
Regarding claim 15, Bharadwaj in view of Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 10, but does not expressively teach wherein the data stream is a pseudo random binary sequence (PRBS) code stream.
However, Zeng in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method involving a first and second optical module (see Zeng Figure 1, network infrastructure 111 and optical module 107 and paragraph [0015]) configured to send a data stream during a loopback configuration (see Figure 2, which is an embodiment of field reader 101 connected to optical module 107 of Figure 1, signal generator 205 and paragraph [0018]) as taught in Bharadwaj in view of Yang wherein
the data stream is a pseudo random binary sequence (PRBS) code stream (see paragraph [0018]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the generic data stream of Bharadwaj in view of Yang with that of Zeng to yield the predictable results of successfully testing the system.
Regarding claim 16, Bharadwaj in view of Yang and Zeng teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the PRBS code stream is a data stream in a message frame for optical module service offline detection (see Zeng paragraph [0018] as combined with Bharadwaj column 10, “A traffic generator on a switch MAC is used to generate loopback test traffic with different FC frame sizes and at up to 100% of the traffic rate of the port” wherein if 100% of the traffic rate is a test frame, this effectively is offline testing as no traffic is sent).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tokura et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,469,248 generally teaches determining a potential failure on a line when a loopback command cannot be detected similar to claim 9 (see Tokura column 1, “When the monitor node 113 receives the signal normally from the protection ring line 112, it cancels the loop-back command for the node 114. A similar operation is repeated for the node 115 by extending the loop-back node farther from the monitor node 113, and if the monitor node 113 receives a signal normally, it commands the node 116 into a loop-back mode. But since a failure 150 took place between the nodes 115 and 116, the signal will not be received normally from the line 112. This is either because the node 116 cannot receive the loop-back command or because the normal signal cannot be returned due to the failure 150 on the transmission line although the node 116 does configure as a loopback. In either case, since the normal signal is not returned, the node 113 sends a command to cancel the loop-back to the node 116, and sends a command for loop-back to the node 115 which is one node before the node 116. This makes the node 115 a loop-back node (LB1)”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights