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
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non- English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024-07-11 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 1-8,10,12 and 15 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. Claims 9,11,13 and 14 are canceled. No claims have been allowed.
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
Claims 2 and 5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2,
the claim is indefinite because it recites that the “optical safety and policy entity or functionality” “connects the first location and/or the first optical data transmission fiber to the network‑internal transmission functionality,” and that the “further optical safety and policy entity or functionality” “connects the second location and/or the second optical data transmission fiber to the network‑internal transmission functionality.” A “location” is not itself a network element with ports/interfaces as claimed, and “network‑internal transmission functionality” is recited as a capability rather than as a definite structure or operational state. The claim therefore does not clearly define (i) what it means to “connect” a location (as opposed to a network node/fiber/port) to a “transmission functionality,” or (ii) whether “connects” requires physical coupling, logical association, control‑plane registration, policy attachment, or user‑plane forwarding. Because multiple reasonable interpretations exist, the metes and bounds of claim 2 are not reasonably certain.
Applicant’s specification uses similar language without further clarifying what precise structure/action constitutes “connects … to the network‑internal transmission functionality,” e.g., Spec., PDF p. 10, ¶ [0020]: “connects the first location and/or the first optical data transmission fiber to the telecommunications network, especially to its network-internal transmission functionality, and wherein the further optical safety and policy entity …”
Regarding claim 5,
the claim is indefinite because it recites “provide, regarding the first and/or second optical signals,” but does not introduce “a first optical signal” and “a second optical signal” with clear antecedent basis and consistent terminology. Independent claim 1 recites only “a user‑defined optical signal” and “a further user‑defined optical signal,” and claim 5 does not state whether the “first and/or second optical signals” correspond to those signals, to bidirectional signals, to protection/working signals, or to another signal pair. As a result, the scope of the policy/protection limitations in claim 5 is unclear with reasonable certainty.
Additionally, claim 5 recites “protection of the optical transmission functionality,” which is not clearly tied to the “network‑internal transmission functionality” terminology used elsewhere in the claims. The claim does not specify what protection mechanism is required (e.g., protection switching, restoration, rerouting, diversity constraints), nor does it clarify whether “optical transmission functionality” is the same as, narrower than, or different from the “network‑internal transmission functionality.” This further contributes to indefiniteness.
The specification repeats the same “first and/or second optical signal(s)” language in connection with “policy decision” and “policy enforcement” functions, e.g., Spec., PDF p. 12, ¶[0026]: “protection of the optical transmission functionality, especially with regard to the backbone network and/or the aggregation network, a policy decision functionality, and a policy enforcement functionality regarding the first and/or second optical signal, wherein thereby the communication or connectivity service between the first location and the second location is able to be realized as an optical and transparent user plane point-to-point connection,”
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 1, 2, 5-8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Haag et al. (US20200099546A1) in view of RFC 6163 and RFC 6934, and further in view of Kauffeldt et al. (US8989591B2) and Yilmaz et al. (US20180076919A1).
Claim 1
Haag is directed to improved and simplified operation of a central office point of delivery and to establishing a service path within or traversing the central office point of delivery in a broadband access network. Haag teaches establishing a service path based on identification information and selecting a service edge node, thereby triggering setup/establishment of the service path within or traversing the central office point of delivery.
Haag teaches service-path establishment being triggered by transmitting identity information and selecting a service edge node, as follows: "[0007] The present invention generally relates to the area point of delivery. The method to establish the service path of aggregation networks linking remote or central access comprises the following steps: in a first step, identity infor nodes to a backbone network or core network of the tele mation of the at least one network termination node is communications network, e.g. broadband access network transmitted to the first line termination node, in a second platforms such as 5G or CORD (Central Office Re-archi step, subsequent to the first step, the identity information of tected as a Data Center). the at least one network termination node is transmitted to [0008] Typically in such archite" [Haag, ¶ [0007]–[0008]]
Haag further teaches a central office point of delivery/broadband access network architecture that includes a controller node and a repository node coupled with a plurality of line termination nodes and service edge nodes, i.e., an orchestrator-like entity connected to multiple optical network nodes and maintaining information used to establish service paths.
Haag teaches a broadband access network / central-office point-of-delivery architecture including a controller node, at least one repository node, and a plurality of line termination nodes, as follows: "[0002] The present invention relates a method for improved and simplified operation and architecture of a central office point of delivery and/or for the establishment of a service path within the central office point of delivery, especially involving a stateless central office point of delivery configuration, within a broadband access network of a telecommunications network, wherein the central office point of delivery and/or the broadband access network comprises a controller node, at least one repository node and a plurality of line termination nodes.[Haag, ¶ [0002]]
Haag also teaches that, upon re-activation of a specific network termination node, the service path is set up or established within or traversing the central office point of delivery. This corresponds to the claimed first step of triggering establishment of network-internal transmission functionality and the claimed second step of establishing the functionality by causing network nodes to apply a transmission path.
Haag teaches such a controller/repository/termination-node/service-edge-node architecture, as follows: "[0070] Still additionally, the present invention relates to a broadband access network comprises a controller node, at program comprising computer readable program code least one repository node and a plurality of line termination which, when executed on a computer and/or on a central nodes, wherein a specific line termination node of the office point of delivery and/or on a repository node of a plurality of line termination nodes is connectable-using an central office point of delivery, or in part on a central office access node port of the specific line termination node-to point of delivery and/or in part on a repository node of the one specific network termination node of a plurality of central office point of delivery, causes the computer and/or network termination nodes, the central office point of delivery and/or the repository node wherein the broadband access network or the central office of the central office point of delivery to perform exemplary point of delivery comprises a plurality of service edge nodes, embodiments of the inventive method. wherein-upon activation of the specific network termina" US 2020/0099546 A1 (Haag), ¶[0070] (PDF p. 10)
Haag also teaches that, upon re-activation of a specific network termination node, the service path is set up or established within or traversing the central office point of delivery. This corresponds to the claimed first step of triggering establishment of network-internal transmission functionality and the claimed second step of establishing the functionality by causing network nodes to apply a transmission path.
Haag teaches that upon re-activation of the network termination node, the service path is set up/established within or traversing the central office point of delivery, as follows: "[0053] According to still a further embodiment of the [0043] identification information of the corresponding present invention, in a seventh step, subsequent to the sixth service edge node. step, and upon re-activation of the specific network termi [0044] Thereby, it is advantageously possible to provide nation node-being connected to the specific line termina for an identification of such optical network terminal devices tion node or to another" [Haag, ¶ [0053]].
Haag teaches that a telecommunications network includes a broadband access network and a plurality of line termination nodes at a central office point of delivery, “Establishing a network-internal transmission functionality to provide a connectivity service between first and second locations based on optical data transmission”, “ [0077] Figure 2 schematically illustrates a central office point of delivery 1 10 as part of a broadband access network 120 of a telecommunications network 100, wherein the represented part of the telecommunications network 100 comprises - besides a controller node 180 and at least one repository node 182 - a plurality of line termination nodes 151, 15 152, 153. Typically, each of the line termination nodes 151, 152, 153 has one or a plurality of access node ports (not specifically illustrated in Figure 2). In the example represented in Figure 2, the broadband access network 120 comprises three-line termination nodes, a first line termination node 151, a second line termination node 152, and a third line termination node 153. The line termination nodes 151, 152, 153 might be 20 provided to support different access technologies to a home gateway or customer premises equipment 50. In the exemplary embodiment shown in Figure 2, the first line termination node 151 is taken as a line termination node supporting to be connected to an optical network, especially a passive optical network (PON), typically a so-called optical line terminal (OLT) or optical line terminal device. In such a situation, a client 25 device 51 is connected to the telecommunications network 100 (i.e. to the first (or also called specific) line termination node 151) via the customer premises equipment 50 (or home gateway device 50) and a network termination node 75. The functionality of the customer premises equipment50 (or home gateway device 50) and the functionality of the network termination node 75 might also be integrated in one device or "box". Even the 30 functionality of the client device 51, the functionality of the customer premises equipment 50 (or home gateway device 50) and the functionality of the network termination node 75 might be integrated in one device or "box". Nevertheless, these functionalities are represented in Figure 2 as separated functionalities. In Figure 2, only one home gateway device 50 (or customer premises equipment 50) (i.e. a specific customer premises 35 equipment), and only one client device 51, and only one network termination node 75 (i.e. a specific network termination node) are shown. However, also the second and/or third line termination nodes 152, 153 might be connected to corresponding network termination nodes and customer premises equipment.” [Haag, FIG.2, [0077]].
Haag further teaches triggering and establishing a network-internal transmission functionality by causing the plurality of optical network nodes to apply at least one transmission path based on transmission path information, “Triggering establishment in a first step and establishing in a second step by causing nodes to apply at least one transmission path based on path information”, “ [0053] According to still a further embodiment of the present invention, in a seventh step, subsequent to the sixth step, and upon re-activation of the specific network termination node - being connected to the specific line termination node or to another specific line termination node - the service path or another service path is set up or is established within or traversing the central office point of delivery.” [Haag, [0053]].
However, in an analogous art RFC 6163 further provides the control-plane framework for applying the computed/signaled optical path. “………… provides a framework for applying Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) and the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture to the control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). In particular, it examines Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) of optical paths. This document focuses on topological elements and path selection constraints that are common across different WSON environments; as such, it does not address optical impairments in any depth…...” [RFC 6163, P.1].
Haag does not expressly teach a WSON control framework leveraging GMPLS/PCE for path computation, However, in an analogous art, RFC 6163 teaches a WSON control framework leveraging GMPLS/PCE for path computation and signaling based on topology/constraints (path information), “Plurality of optical network nodes; orchestrator connected to nodes and comprising transmission path information; establishing by causing nodes to apply a transmission path base on path information” [RFC 6163, p. 1].
RFC 6163 does not expressly teach broadband access networks providing IP connectivity via a
service provider central office (OLT)However, in an analogous art, RFC 6934 teaches
broadband access networks providing IP connectivity via a service provider central office (OLT)
to multiple premises (ONT/ONU) “Network comprises backbone/aggregation and an access
network; provides end-user communications/IP connectivity to many end users connected to
the access network.”, “Access Node Complex (ANX): composed of two geographicallseparated
functional elements -- OLT and ONU/ONT. The general term Access Node Complex (ANX)
will be used when describing a functionality that does not depend on the physical location
but rather on the "black box" behavior of OLT and ONU/ONT. Optical Line Terminal
(OLT): is located in the service provider’s central office (CO). It terminates and aggregates
multiple PONs (providing fiber access to multiple premises or neighborhoods) on the
subscriber side and interfaces with the Network Access Server (NAS) that provides
subscriber management. Optical Network Terminal (ONT): terminates PON on the
network side and provides PON adaptation. The subscriber side interface and the location
of the ONT are dictated by the type of network deployment. For an FTTP deployment
(with fiber all the way to the apartment or living unit), ONT has Ethernet (Fast Ethernet
(FE) / Gigabit Ethernet (GE) / Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA)) connectivity with
the Home Gateway (HGW) / Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). In certain cases, one
ONT may provide connections to more than one Home Gateway at the same time. Optical
Network Unit (ONU): a generic term denoting a device that terminates any one of the
distributed (leaf) endpoints of an Optical Distribution Network (ODN), implements a PON
protocol, and adapts PON PDUs to subscriber service interfaces. In the case of a multi-
dwelling unit (MDU) or multi-tenant unit (MTU), a Mult subscriber ONU typically resides
in the basement or a wiring closet (FTTB case) and has FE/GE/Ethernet over native
Ethernet link or over xDSL (typically VDSL) connectivity with each CPE at the subscriber
premises. In the case where fiber is terminated outside the premises (neighborhood or curb side) on an ONT/ONU, the last-leg-premises connections could be via existing or new
copper, with xDSL physical layer (typically VDSL). In this case, the ONU effectively is a
"PON-fed DSLAM". Network Access Server (NAS): network element that aggregates
subscriber traffic from a number of ANs or ANXs. The NAS is often an injection point for
policy management and IP QoS in the access network. It is also referred to as Broadband
Network Gateway (BNG) or Broadband Remote Access Server (BRAS). Home Gateway
(HGW): network element that connects subscriber devices to the AN or ANX and the
access network. In the case of xDSL, the Home Gateway is an xDSL network termination
that could either operate as a Layer 2 bridge or as a Layer 3 router……” [RFC 6934, p. 5].
RFC 6934 does not expressly teach a demarcation architecture in which control logic verifies
that optical signal parameters conform However, in an analogous art, Kauffeldt teaches a
demarcation architecture in which control logic verifies that optical signal parameters conform
to 'acceptance criteria' before allowing optical data plane signals into the service provider
network (policy decision + enforcement at ingress), “First location linked via optical fiber to an
optical safety/policy entity; second location linked via optical fiber to a further optical
safety/policy entity”, “A further objective of the present invention is to enable a
service provider to perform one or more functions at Such an optical demarcation point
Such as retrieve inventory information or monitor performance of the apparatus and/or
signals at said point. A further objective of the invention is to enable a service provider to
track and respond to events such as power cycles and other failure conditions which occur
or are detected at Such an optical demarcation point. A further objective of the invention is
to provide a single Solution that may be used in both intra-domain and inter domain
applications within and/or among metro, regional, long haul and hybrid optical networks
for control of an optical demarcation point with Support for single and/or multi-chan nel
optical links while being protocol, modulation rate, modulation format, and bit-rate
independent………………... FIGS. 1-3 depict prior art examples of WDM demarcation
points and/or arrangements between network equipment within the service provider
domain and the corresponding customer equipment within the customer ………..wherein
the modules use a customer demarcation control channel (CCC) transported via an optical
channel distinct from any associated optical data plane signal………… FIGS. 7a and 7b show
the high-level block diagrams of, respectively, an MSA compatible Slave module and an MSA
compatible Master module using a customer demarcation control channel transported via a
signal Superimposed upon at least one of the optical data plane signals……….. The inventive
system is similar to that of an Optical Network Terminal (ONT) found at remote customer
sites in Fiber to The Home (FTTH) networks, or to the use of Ethernet TM demarcation points
at various CPE sites. The inventive system, as depicted in FIG. 4, extends the demarcation
points 430 and 431 to the CPE locations. Ideally this includes placing WDM transceivers or all-
optical signal converters at remote nodes 420 and 421…….. The inventive system defines
three elements for meeting this objective: a Master port (hereafter referred to as Master),
two instances of which are 451 and 452, preferably located at an SP edge node, here 402 and
403, respectively, a Slave port, (hereafter referred to as Slave), two instances of which are
411 and 412, preferably located at a CPE node, here 420 and 421, and a customer
demarcation control channel facilitating communication between each corresponding paired
Master and Slave (not shown explicitly in FIG. 4)……….”[Kauffeldt, cols. 5-6]
However, in an analogous art Yilmaz further teaches adding alien wavelengths by measuring characteristics and permitting operation when characteristics satisfy a criterion (policy decision leading to unblocking/allow), “[ 0010] In some implementations, the criterion comprises a power stability threshold or a permitted wave. In some implementations, the predetermined level comprises an intermediate power target (IPT). In some implementations, the predetermined level is low enough not to impact other optical signals on the fiber optic line. In some implementations, the predetermined level is high enough for the optical signal be reliably measured after the WSS. In some implementations, the predetermined level is based on a spectral width of the optical signal, or on a minimum power requirement of a fiber optic amplifier. In some implementations, the characteristic comprises the power of the optical signal” [Yilmaz, [0010]].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated tasked with provisioning an internal optical transport service across an access network and backbone/aggregation networks would have recognized that the key engineering problem is not only defining desired end points, but also reliably computing a feasible optical transmission path across multiple optical nodes, signaling that path to the nodes, and enforcing provider constraints so that the requested service can be activated without disrupting existing traffic. Haag provides the service-orchestration concept of establishing a network-internal transmission functionality using transmission path information across optical network nodes, but a POSITA would have been motivated to implement that orchestration using standardized optical control-plane mechanisms so that multi-vendor optical nodes can interoperate and deterministically apply the same path. RFC 6163 teaches a WSON control framework using GMPLS/PCE, which supplies the known technique for computing and establishing constrained optical paths based on topology and constraints. RFC 6934 teaches the widely deployed PON access architecture in which an OLT in a service provider central office terminates and aggregates multiple PONs to connect many premises/end users and interfaces the access network with IP service functions. A POSITA also would have been motivated to incorporate policy/acceptance gating and optical feasibility criteria because optical paths should be established only when they satisfy provider-defined acceptance criteria and physical-layer limits; Kauffeldt teaches verifying that control signals conform to acceptance criteria defined by the service provider, and Yilmaz teaches evaluating criteria such as permitted wavelengths or power stability. Combining these teachings is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions (KSR): orchestrate a requested connectivity service, compute and signal an optical path using standard control-plane mechanisms, serve many end users via a central-office access architecture, and enforce provider acceptance/feasibility constraints. The expected result is the claimed network-internal transmission functionality between first and second locations based on the optical signals, with optical nodes applying at least one transmission path derived from transmission path information.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Haag, RFC 6163, RFC 6934, Kauffeldt and Yilmaz except wherein the optical safety and policy entity and the further optical safety and policy entity are recited as controlling the plurality of optical network nodes to establish the transmission functionality. However, in an analogous art, Yilmaz teaches controlling optical line system behavior based on measured characteristics satisfying a criterion, including unblocking/allowing operation only when criteria (e.g., permitted wavelengths or power stability thresholds) are satisfied, corresponding to a safety/policy gate that controls node behavior during service establishment, as follows: “[0010] In some implementations , the criterion comprises a power stability threshold or a permitted wave . In some implementations, the predetermined level comprises an intermediate power target (IPT). In some implementations, the predetermined level is low enough not to impact other
optical signals on the fiber optic line. In some implementations, the predetermined level is high enough for the optical signal be reliably measured after the WSS. In some implementations, the predetermined level is based on a spectral width of the optical signal, or on a minimum power requirement of a fiber optic amplifier. In some implementations, the characteristic comprises the power of the optical signal.” [Yilmaz, ¶[0010]].
A POSITA would have been motivated to include coordinated establishment control among an orchestrator and dedicated safety/policy entities because carrier optical transport services are commonly subject to administrative policy, security, and operational rules that must be enforced at service demarcation points. Implementing safety/policy entities as active participants in establishment control provides predictable advantages: it creates explicit policy decision points, prevents provisioning of paths that violate provider criteria, and allows the orchestrator to request service connectivity while policy entities validate and enforce constraints. Kauffeldt teaches verifying that control signaling conforms to service-provider-defined acceptance criteria on a distinct control channel, which supports separating and enforcing policy decisions independent from payload transport. Yilmaz teaches using explicit criteria such as permitted wavelengths and stability thresholds when evaluating optical operation, Thus, combining Haag's orchestration with these known policy decision/enforcement concepts yields the predictable result that only compliant transmission paths are established, improving reliability and operational assurance.
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Haag, RFC 6163, RFC 6934, Kauffeldt and Yilmaz except the explicit recitation that each optical safety/policy entity provides (i) a policy decision functionality and (ii) a policy enforcement functionality to protect the optical transmission functionality in the backbone/aggregation network, and that the service is realized as an optical transparent user-plane point-to-point connection. However, in an analogous art, RFC 6163 teaches provisioning optical user-plane connectivity through the WSON. [RFC 6163, p. 1]
RFC 6163 does not expressly teach verifying that optical signal parameter values meet the
service provider's acceptance criteria However, in an analogous art, Kauffeldt teaches verifying
that optical signal parameter values meet the service provider's acceptance criteria (policy
decision) and allowing or preventing the optical data plane signal(s) from entering the service
provider's network (policy enforcement). [Kauffeldt, cols. 5-6,]
Within analogous art, Yilmaz further teaches unblocking/allowing operation when measured characteristics satisfy a criterion, corresponding to enforcement of a policy decision. “[ 0010] In some implementations, the criterion comprises a power stability threshold or a permitted wave. In some implementations, the predetermined level comprises an intermediate power target (IPT). In some implementations, the predetermined level is low enough not to impact other optical signals on the fiber optic line. In some implementations, the predetermined level is high enough for the optical signal be reliably measured after the WSS. In some implementations, the predetermined level is based on a spectral width of the optical signal, or on a minimum power requirement of a fiber optic amplifier. In some implementations, the characteristic comprises the power of the optical signal.” [Yilmaz, [0010]].
A POSITA would have been motivated to recite and implement explicit policy decision functionality, policy enforcement functionality, and protection of the transmission functionality because optical backbone and aggregation networks are shared infrastructure that must be protected from misconfiguration and must meet service-level expectations. Adding explicit policy decision and enforcement functions provides a predictable mechanism to admit/deny requested optical paths, constrain route selection based on feasibility (e.g., permitted wavelengths, optical power stability), and enforce provider rules across domains. Kauffeldt teaches applying service-provider-defined acceptance criteria to control signaling and maintaining a control channel distinct from the data plane, supporting policy enforcement separate from payload. Yilmaz teaches evaluating operation using explicit criteria. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate these known policy/protection mechanisms into Haag's network-internal transmission functionality as a predictable improvement for safeguarding network resources and ensuring compliant service establishment.
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Haag, RFC 6163, RFC 6934, Kauffeldt and Yilmaz except an access network having a central office point of delivery coupled with the optical safety/policy entity (and similarly at the second location). Haag expressly teaches a central office point of delivery [Haag, FIG.2, [0077]].
Haag further teaches establishing a service path within or traversing a central office point of delivery, as follows: "[0007] The present invention generally relates to the area point of delivery. The method to establish the service path of aggregation networks linking remote or central access comprises the following steps: in a first step, identity infor nodes to a backbone network or core network of the tele mation of the at least one network termination node is communications network, e.g. broadband access network transmitted to the first line termination node, in a second platforms such as 5G or CORD (Central Office Re-archi step, subsequent to the first step, the identity information of tected as a Data Center). the at least one network termination node is transmitted to [0008] Typically in such archite" [Haag, ¶[0007]–[0008]]
Haag does not expressly teach the service provider's central office architecture However, in an analogous art, RFC 6934 teaches the service provider's central office architecture (OLT) for access network termination/aggregation. [RFC 6934, §2, P.5]
A POSITA would have been motivated to position safety/policy functionality at a central office point of delivery because the central office is a natural service-provider demarcation point where provider equipment interfaces with subscriber access fibers and where provisioning, policy enforcement, and protection are operationally administered. Haag expressly identifies a central office point of delivery in a broadband access network context, and RFC 6934 defines the OLT located in the service provider's central office that terminates and aggregates multiple PONs. Implementing safety/policy entities at one or more central office points of delivery yields the predictable advantages of centralized control, consistent policy enforcement, and simplified deployment and maintenance.
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, all claim limitations of claim 6 are taught by Haag, RFC 6163, RFC 6934, Kauffeldt and Yilmaz except the access nodes at the central office provide optical network termination functionality to end users connected via at least partly optical fiber infrastructure. However, in an analogous art, Haag teaches access nodes (e.g., DSLAM/OLT) aggregating network termination ports in a broadband access network, as follows: "[0007] The present invention generally relates to the area point of delivery. The method to establish the service path of aggregation networks linking remote or central access comprises the following steps: in a first step, identity infor nodes to a backbone network or core network of the tele mation of the at least one network termination node is communications network, e.g. broadband access network transmitted to the first line termination node, in a second platforms such as 5G or CORD (Central Office Re-archi step, subsequent to the first step, the identity information of tected as a Data Center). the at least one network termination node is transmitted to [0008] Typically in such archite" [Haag, ¶[0008]]
Within analogous art RFC 6934 teaches an OLT at the service provider central office terminating/aggregating multiple PONs with ONT/ONU termination at the premises over optical fiber infrastructure. [RFC 6934, §2, p. 5]
A POSITA would have been motivated to provide a plurality of access nodes and an orchestrator at the central office point of delivery because broadband access networks scale by aggregating many subscriber terminations and require coordinated provisioning and monitoring to deliver IP connectivity. RFC 6934 teaches that the OLT in the central office aggregates multiple PONs and interfaces the access network to the provider network to supply IP services. Haag's orchestration concept naturally complements this architecture by coordinating establishment across access and transport nodes. Combining the access-node aggregation taught by RFC 6934 with Haag's orchestrated path establishment is a predictable design choice that yields the expected result of access nodes providing optical network termination for end users while an orchestrator coordinates service activation.
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Haag, RFC 6163, RFC 6934, Kauffeldt and Yilmaz except connecting the first location to the central office point of delivery using a passive optical network (PON) or passive/active optical fiber links as recited However, in an analogous art, Haag teaches access architectures including OLT (Optical Line Terminal) access nodes and PON-type aggregation, as follows: "[0007] The present invention generally relates to the area point of delivery. The method to establish the service path of aggregation networks linking remote or central access comprises the following steps: in a first step, identity infor nodes to a backbone network or core network of the tele mation of the at least one network termination node is communications network, e.g. broadband access network transmitted to the first line termination node, in a second platforms such as 5G or CORD (Central Office Re-archi step, subsequent to the first step, the identity information of tected as a Data Center). the at least one network termination node is transmitted to [0008] Typically in such archite" [Haag, ¶[0008]].
Within analogous art, RFC 6934 teaches PON configurations using optical fiber between a central office OLT and multiple premises [RFC 6934, p.5].
A POSITA would have been motivated to include alternative access-fiber implementations (point-to-point passive fiber, active optical fiber, or a passive optical network) because fiber access deployments commonly use any of these options depending on reach, cost, and capacity requirements. RFC 6934 teaches a passive optical network architecture, while also reflecting that service-provider access can be implemented with different fiber plant options. Selecting among these known alternatives is a predictable engineering choice that does not alter the fundamental establishment of the network-internal transmission functionality, but instead adapts it to common deployment scenarios.
Claim 10
Haag teaches that the broadband access network comprises access network infrastructure, including optical fiber infrastructure between a central office point of delivery and the end-users connected thereto, as follows: “[0076] In FIG. 1, a telecommunications network 100 according to the present invention is schematically shown, having-preferably-at least a fixed line part. A mobile (or cellular) part might be present as well, as part of the telecommunications network 100. User equipment’s or client devices 51, 52 are connected to the telecommunications network 100 via a broadband access network 120. The telecommunications network 100 comprises a backbone network 130 and, especially as part of the broadband access network 120, at least one logical or physical central office point of delivery 110 that is preferably realized within a data center and that is especially handling different access requirements, especially different access possibilities, of the client devices 51, 52 to network functionalities provided by the telecommunications network 100 or via the telecommunications network 100. The client devices 51, 52 are typically connected to the logical or physical central office point of delivery 110 via a customer premises equipment device 50, 50' or via a customer premises equipment functionality that might be built in the client devices 51, 52. Preferably but not necessarily, the central office point of delivery 110 comprises a switching fabric 115 comprising a plurality of spine network nodes and typically also a plurality of leaf network nodes which are not explicitly represented in FIG. 1.” [Haag, p. 10 (PDF), ¶ [0076]].
Haag further teaches that a line termination node of the central office point of delivery is connectable to a client device via an optical fiber infrastructure, and that identity information associated with the line termination node may be used to select a service edge node to establish a service path, as follows: “[0081] The central office point of delivery 110 and/or the broadband access network 120 comprises a controller node 180, at least one repository node 182, a plurality of line termination nodes 151, 152, 153, and a plurality of service edge nodes 171, 172, 173, 174, wherein a specific line termination node 151 of the plurality of line termination nodes is connectable-using an access node port of the specific line termination node 151-to typically only one specific network termination node 75 (of a plurality of network termination nodes that are, however, not shown in FIG. 2).” [Haag, ¶[0081]]; and “[0082] According to the present invention, upon activation of the specific network termination node 75, being con nected to the specific line termination node 151-the service path is set up or is established within or traversing the central office point of delivery 110, wherein the method to set up or to establish the service path comprises the following steps:” [Haag, ¶[0082]].
Haag does not expressly teach applying GMPLS/PCE control to compute and establish optical paths However, in an analogous art, RFC 6163 teaches applying GMPLS/PCE control to compute and establish optical paths in WSONs based on topology and constraints, “……… a framework for applying Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) and the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture to the control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). In particular, it examines Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) of optical paths. This document focuses on topological elements and path selection constraints that are common across different WSON environments; as such, it does not address optical impairments in any depth……………. that the possible output links for the links connecting to the routers is inferred from the switched connectivity matrix and the fixed connectivity matrix of the Nodes N1 through N8 and is shown here for convenience; that is, this information does not need to be repeated. 5.2. RWA Path Computation and Establishment; The calculation of optical impairment feasible routes is outside the scope of this document. In general, optical impairment feasible routes serve as an input to an RWA algorithm…………………” [RFC 6163, p. 1; §5.2, p. 34].
RFC 6163 does not expressly teach OLT at a service provider central office that terminates and aggregates multiple PONs However, in an analogous art, RFC 6934 teaches an OLT at a service provider central office that terminates and aggregates multiple PONs to provide IP connectivity to multiple premises/end users [RFC 6934, §2, p. 5].
RFC 6934 does not expressly teach applying service-provider acceptance criteria on a control channel distinct However, in an analogous art, Kauffeldt teaches applying service-provider acceptance criteria on a control channel distinct from the optical data plane [Kauffeldt, cols. 5-6], consistent with the claimed optical safety and policy entities. Accordingly, claim 10 would have been obvious.
A POSITA would have been motivated to claim and implement the service-establishment functionality of claim 1 in the explicit “system” form of claim 10 because telecommunications service provisioning in carrier networks is routinely realized as an integrated network system that includes (i) access, aggregation, and backbone infrastructure, (ii) a centralized orchestration/control function, and (iii) node-level control that applies computed transmission paths. In practice, a carrier operator deploys this functionality as a system precisely to manage scale (many end users), interoperability (multiple optical nodes), and reliable path establishment. Haag’s disclosure of a controller node and repository node at the central office point of delivery provides the known, predictable system architecture for central coordination and storage of information used for service/path setup and RFC 6163 supplies the standardized GMPLS/PCE control-plane approach for computing and establishing constrained optical routes RFC 6934 confirms that access deployment commonly aggregates many endpoints via an OLT at the central office , making a system-level orchestrated approach technically and economically advantageous. Thus, combining these teachings in a single system is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions, yielding the expected result of an operational carrier network system that establishes a network-internal transmission functionality between two locations by triggering establishment and causing optical nodes to apply a computed transmission path.
Claim 15
The base combination of Haag, RFC 6163, RFC 6934, Kauffeldt, and Yilmaz teaches each of the recited steps when the processor-executable instructions are executed, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Further, Haag expressly teaches providing a program comprising computer readable program code which, when executed, causes performance of the (inventive) method, as follows: “[0070] Still additionally, the present invention relates to a program comprising computer readable program code which, when executed on a computer and/or on a central office point of delivery and/or on a repository node of a central office point of delivery, or in part on a central office point of delivery and/or in part on a repository node of the central office point of delivery, causes the computer and/or the central office point of delivery and/or the repository node of the central office point of delivery to perform exemplary embodiments of the inventive method.” [Haag, p. 9 (PDF), ¶[0070]].
Haag further teaches a computer program product comprising a computer program stored on a storage medium with program code which, when executed, causes performance of the method, as follows: “[0071] Furthermore, the present invention relates to a computer program product for improved and simplified operation of a central office point of delivery and/or for the establishment of a service path within the central office point of delivery, especially involving a stateless central office point of delivery configuration, within a broadband access network of a telecommunications network, the computer program product comprising a computer program stored on a storage medium, the computer program comprising program code which, when executed on a computer and/or on a central office point of delivery and/or on a repository node of a central office point of delivery, or in part on a central office point of delivery and/or in part on a repository node of the central office point of delivery, causes the computer and/or the central office point of delivery and/or the repository node of the central office point of delivery to perform exemplary embodiments of the inventive method. [Haag, p. 9 (PDF), ¶[0071]]. Accordingly, claim 15 would have been obvious.
A POSITA would have been motivated to claim and implement the claim 1 method as a non-transitory computer-readable medium with processor-executable instructions (claim 15) because network orchestration and optical control-plane functions are implemented, deployed, and updated as software in carrier controllers, orchestrators, and associated management platforms. Expressing the same service-establishment logic as stored instructions is a predictable implementation choice that provides practical benefits—repeatable automated provisioning, easier updates to policy/constraint logic, and integration with existing controller/orchestrator software stacks—without changing the underlying technical operation. Haag explicitly recognizes this conventional implementation route by teaching both computer readable program code and a computer program product stored on a storage medium to cause performance of the method. Therefore, a POSITA would have found it obvious to store and deploy the claim 1 establishment steps as processor-executable instructions on a non-transitory medium, yielding the expected result that the same network-internal transmission functionality can be executed by network computing equipment.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Haag et al. in view of RFC 6163 and RFC 6934, and further in view of Kauffeldt et al., Yilmaz et al., RFC 7446 and Duro et al.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Haag, RFC 6163, RFC 6934, Kauffeldt and Yilmaz except: (i) defining an IP-based control plane between the optical safety/policy entity and the further optical safety/policy entity that is different from the user-plane optical route, and (ii) calculating and establishing the optical route using a control-plane interconnection between the network orchestrator and the optical network nodes. However, in analogous optical control-plane art.
RFC 6163 teaches applying GMPLS/PCE control to wavelength switched optical networks (WSONs) to compute and establish optical paths based on topology and constraints [RFC 6163, p.1]
Within analogous art, RFC 7446 teaches SRLG information for grouping links into shared risk groups (links likely to fail at the same time), which is a standard constraint used in path calculation for protection/diversity.
RFC 7446 further teaches SRLG information for grouping links into shared risk groups (links likely to fail at the same time), as follows: "Shared Risk Link Group Information SRLG: Defined in [RFC4202] and implemented in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. This allows for the grouping of links into shared risk groups, i.e., those links that are likely, for some reason, to fail at the same time. Lee, et al. Informational [Page 14]" RFC 7446, §6.4 (SRLG), p. 14 (PDF p. 14)
RFC 7446 also teaches port wavelength restrictions (port label restrictions) that constrain which wavelengths/labels may be used at a port, i.e., lambda blocking constraints relevant to path calculation and application.
RFC 7446 further teaches expressing WSON constraints such as wavelength continuity and port label (wavelength) restrictions used by the control plane for constrained optical path computation “………...WSON information model described in this document is to facilitate constrained optical path computation, and as such it is not a general-purpose network management information model. This constraint is frequently referred to as the "wavelength continuity" constraint, and the corresponding constrained optical path computation is known as the Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) problem. Hence, the information model must provide sufficient topology and wavelength restriction and availability information to support this computation. More details on the RWA process and WSON subsystems and their properties can be found in [RFC6163]. The model defined here includes constraints between WSON signal attributes and network elements but does not include optical impairments. In addition to presenting an information model suitable for path computation in WSON, this document also highlights model aspects that may have general applicability to other technologies utilizing a GMPLS control plane. The portion of the information model applicable to technologies beyond WSON is referred to as "general" to distinguish it from the "WSON-specific" portion that is applicable only to WSON technology……..Refer to [RFC6163] for definitions of Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer (ROADM), RWA, Wavelength Conversion, Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM), WSON, and other related terminology used in this document. Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model The WSON RWA information model in this document comprises four categories of information. The categories are independent of whether the information comes from a switching subsystem or from a line subsystem -- a switching subsystem refers to WSON nodes such as a ROADM or an Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer (OADM), and a line subsystem refers to devices such as WDM or Optical Amplifier. The categories are these: Node Information Link Information Dynamic Node Information Dynamic Link Information…… 6.6. Port Label Restrictions Port label restrictions could be applied generally to any label types in GMPLS by adding new kinds of restrictions. Wavelength is a type of label. Port label (wavelength) restrictions (PortLabelRestriction) model the label (wavelength) restrictions that the link and various optical devices, such as Optical Cross-Connects (OXCs), ROADMs, and waveband multiplexers, may impose on a port. These restrictions tell us what wavelength may or may not be used on a link and are relatively static. This plays an important role in fully characterizing a WSON switching device [Switch]. Port wavelength restrictions are specified relative to the port in general or to a specific connectivity matrix (Section 4.1). [Switch] gives an example where both switch and fixed connectivity matrices are used and both types of constraints occur on the same port.
<PortLabelRestriction> ::= <MatrixID>
<RestrictionType>
<Restriction parameters list>……………” [RFC 7446, p.3; §6.6, p.15].
Duro teaches “Segment Switching” as a switching strategy in optical networks, describing segment switching and its role in improving optical network switching/routing behavior, which corresponds to the claimed optical segment switching and segment-switching transmission path information.
Further, Duro teaches segment switching for optical networks, in which an end-to-end circuit is split into segments to improve utilization “………The aim of this article is to improve the network performance of photonic networks for exascale computing. With this aim, we focus on improving the network utilization by proposing a new switching mechanism that better exploits the main features of photonics (i.e. number of channels and aggregated bandwidth). In particular, we propose Segment Switching, a novel switching strategy which allows to improve network utilization and, therefore, network performance in torus and fat tree topologies. Segment Switching improves network utilization by splitting the circuit from message source to destination into smaller segments. More precisely, instead of reserving the entire route from source to destination, we reserve a segment or fraction (defined by the availability of network resources) or the entire route. In this way, unlike circuit switching, long paths are not reserved at the same time, so reducing reservation convicts and allowing the transmission to proceed even if the path is not fully reserved. To be effective, Segment Switching requires a limited number of buffering. Nevertheless, we show that with current photonics technologies, which allow a small number of buffers to be implemented in a photonic switch, the proposal is feasible and provides significant performance benefits. Experimental results show that Segment Switching with only 1MB buffer on a quarter of the network switches improves speedup by…….” [Duro,p.2].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to implement Haag's orchestrated establishment using a distinct IP control plane (for signaling/constraints) and to compute and establish the user-plane optical route using known GMPLS/PCE constrained routing, including constraints such as wavelength restrictions and SRLG, and optionally to perform segment-based establishment, as a predictable improvement for interoperability, manageability, and reliable optical path establishment.
A POSITA would have been motivated to establish the optical route using a distinct IP-based control plane because optical transport networks conventionally separate control and data planes for scalability, interoperability, and fault isolation. RFC 6163 expressly teaches applying GMPLS and PCE architecture to control WSONs, including path computation and establishment based on topology/constraints, RFC 7446 teaches representing WSON constraints such as wavelength continuity and port label restrictions that are used for constrained optical path computation. Duro teaches segment switching to improve utilization by dividing an end-to-end circuit into segments. Combining these teachings with Haag's orchestrated establishment yields predictable advantages: the orchestrator can exchange constraint information with nodes over the control plane, compute a feasible optical route, signal the route to the nodes, and optionally establish the route in segments. The expected result is a reliably computed and established user-plane optical route, distinct from the control plane used for signaling and policy enforcement.
However, in an analogous art, Duro teaches optical segment switching that splits an optical circuit into segments and utilizes buffering on selected nodes, corresponding to defining an optical user-plane route via segment switching. Duro, Further, in an analogous art, RFC 7446 teaches WSON constraints used for RWA/path computation including wavelength continuity constraints (lambda blocking constraints) and SRLG-related constraints/topology information, and RFC 6163 teaches the use of GMPLS/PCE for constrained optical path computation and provisioning, RFC 7446, RFC 6163.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Haag et al. in view of RFC 6163 and RFC 6934, and further in view of Kauffeldt et al., Yilmaz et al., RFC 7446, Duro et al., and Chang et al. (US6580537B1).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Haag, RFC 6163, RFC 6934, Kauffeldt and Yilmaz however Haag and RFC 6163 do not expressly teach transmitting, at least between two consecutive optical network nodes, segment optical switching identifier information, nor expressly teach that a destination optical network node comprises a probe optical branch that (i) detects and determines the segment optical switching identifier information and (ii) selects and/or controls the destination optical network node according to the content of the segment optical switching identifier information. Chang does not expressly teach a 'probe optical branch'; however, Chang teaches tapping optical signaling header information for detection/control, as follows: “…………FIG. 4 depicts a second type of Plug-and-Play module, optical element 410, which is associated with each WDM network element 121-125, say element 121 for discussion purposes. Module 410 is interposed between conventional network element circuit Switch controller 420 and conventional Switching device 430. Module 410 detects information from each Signaling header 210 propagating over any fiber 401-403, as provided to module 410 by tapped fiber paths 404–406. Module 410 functions to achieve very rapid table look-up and fast Signaling to Switching device 430. Switch controller 420 is functionally equivalent to the conventional “craft interface' used for controlling the network elements; however, in this case, the purpose of this Switch controller 420 is to accept the circuit-Switched Signaling from NC&M 220 and determine which control commands are to be sent to label Switch controller 410 based on the priority. Thus, label Switch controller 410 receives circuit-Switched control Signals from network element circuit Switch controller 420, as well as information as derived from each Signaling each header 210, and intelligently chooses between the circuit-switched and the label-Switched control Schemes. The Switches (discussed later) comprising Switching device 430 also achieve rapid Switching…….”, [Chang, col. 10]. Accordingly, claim 4 would have been obvious.
A POSITA would have been motivated to convey and detect segment optical switching identifier information because segment-based establishment requires nodes to identify segment state and switching behavior without converting the payload out of the optical domain. Chang teaches an in-band optical signaling header and teaches tapping the optical signal via tapped fiber paths and detecting signaling-header information to support switching control decisions. Duro teaches segment switching, which depends on segment identification and coordination among nodes to establish a connection in parts rather than reserving an entire route at once. Applying Chang's tapped detection mechanism to segment identifier information in a segment-switched optical network would have been a predictable use of known techniques: carry identifier information with the optical signal, tap a small portion for detection, and use the detected identifier content to select/control the destination node's switching behavior for the segment. The expected result is faster and more reliable segment-based optical establishment with reduced processing disruption and improved control.
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, all claim limitations of claim 10 are taught by Haag, RFC 6163, RFC 6934, Kauffeldt and Yilmaz except a probe optical branch configured to detect and determine segment optical switching identifier information and to select and/or control the segment destination optical network node according to the identifier. The base combination of rejection do not expressly teach this probe-branch-based identifier detection and destination selection/control. Chang does not expressly teach a 'probe optical branch'; however, Chang teaches tapping optical signaling header information for detection/control, as follows: "Module 410 detects information from each signaling header 210 propagating over any fiber 401-403, as provided to module 410 by tapped fiber paths 404-406. Module ..." (Chang, col. 10, ll. 49-55). Accordingly, claim 12 would have been obvious.
A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the corresponding node-level probe-branch detection and control because once the network conveys segment identifier information, each destination (or segment destination) optical node must locally detect the identifier and apply the appropriate switching control. Chang provides the known node-level mechanism of tapping the optical signal and detecting signaling-header information to drive switching control Implementing claim 12 as the node counterpart is a predictable engineering step that yields the expected result that the optical node can detect the segment identifier information and select/control the node accordingly.
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