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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (“Analysis of OSU mapping and multiplexing mechanism” provided by applicant in the non-patent literature document) in view of Iovanna et al (US Pub. No. 2021/0328703 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wei et al teaches a mapping and multiplexing method for an optical transport network, the mapping and multiplexing method comprising:
first providing a mapping opportunity generated by an Optical Channel Payload Unit (OPU) in a current transport window to one or more Optical Service Unit (OSU) services (page 2, section 1) Example of distribution PBs to OSU: “In each transport period P, it evenly generates 4 mapping chances…”), which satisfy a first scheduling condition, in a first queue, and performing in-queue scheduling on the one or more OSU services, which satisfy the first scheduling condition, in the first queue so as to provide the mapping opportunity to one of the one or more OSU services in the first queue (page 3, section 2) Judgement & scheduling mechanism: “…how to judge and schedule multiple OSU frames to PB…”; page 3, Fig. 2 and paragraphs 1-4);
in a case where there is no OSU service satisfying the first scheduling condition in the first queue, providing the mapping opportunity to one or more OSU services, which satisfy a second scheduling condition, in a second queue, and performing in-queue scheduling on the one or more OSU services, which satisfy the second scheduling condition, in the second queue so as to provide the mapping opportunity to one of the one or more OSU services in the second queue (page 3 Table 1 shows rules and page 4 Fig. 2 shows queues for OSUs and para 1-4 discussed OSU allocated to queues);
updating a remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service which gets the mapping opportunity, wherein a service mapping opportunity quantity of respective OSU service in one transport window is independently set (Figs. 2 and 3 shows service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU in different time windows; see also discussion on page 4 para 1 to page 5 para 1); and
allocating OSU services entering mapping and multiplexing in the current transport window to the first queue and the second queue according to the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of respective OSU service, wherein the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service assigned to the first queue is greater than the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service assigned to the second queue (Figs2 and 3; page 3, para 2 to page 4, para 4).
Wei et al teaches allocating OSU services entering mapping and multiplexing in the current transport window, as discussed above, and differs from the claimed invention in that Wei et al does not specifically teach that the allocation is performed dynamically. However, it is well known to perform dynamic allocation. Iovanna et al teaches scheduling for optical communication system wherein slot assignment is communicated to the scheduler (para [0044]; “The SAL 260 is configured to communicate the slot assignments required for all the ONTs to the scheduler 258, the scheduler controlling the switch 256 accordingly. In particular, the SAL 260 assigns slots according to the traffic requirements…. In some aspects, the SAL calculates the dynamic sharing level, which is not performed by standard schedulers in packet switches. The SAL then assigns the slots to the users (i.e. ONTs), taking into account of the dynamic sharing level. As such, the SAL provides the slot assignment logics to the scheduler.”) and dynamically allocation of slots (para [0060]; “The operative phase 450 provides for an iterative, or dynamic, re-allocation of slots throughout the network operation period.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the optical communication of Wei et al by dynamically allocating OSU services, as taught by Iovanna et al in order to avoid a buffer being over-filled or to meet latency or QoS requirements of the communication system.
Regarding claim 2, Wei et al teaches wherein an initial mapping opportunity value Δj of the OSU service in one transport window is preset, and the initial mapping opportunity value indicates the number of initial mapping opportunities required for the OSU service to enter the mapping and multiplexing in the transport window; and the service mapping opportunity quantity is assigned to the OSU service when the OSU service enters the mapping and multiplexing in the transport window ((page 2, section 1) Example of distribution PBs to OSU: “In each transport period P, it evenly generates 4 mapping chances…”); Fig. 2 shows time window for OSU frames).
Regarding claim 6, Wei et al teaches wherein a width of the transport window is N transport periods of the OPU; and the service mapping opportunity quantity is N×C, wherein N is a positive integer, and C is the number of payload blocks required by the OSU service to which the service mapping opportunity quantity belongs in one transport period of the OPU (Fig. 1 shows N transport period or window; page 2, section 1) Example of distribution PBs to OSU: “In each transport period P, it evenly generates 4 mapping chances…”); Fig. 2 shows time window for OSU frames).
Regarding claim 7, Wei et al teaches wherein dynamically allocating the OSU services entering the mapping and multiplexing in the current transport window to the first queue and the second queue according to the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the respective OSU service comprises: allocating the OSU service of which the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity is greater than 0 to the first queue, and allocating the OSU service of which the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity is equal to or less than 0 to the second queue (page 4, Fig. 2 shows OSUs allocated to different queue and see also discussion on page 4 para 1 to page 5 para 1).
Regarding claim 10, Wei et al teaches an electronic device, comprising:
first providing a mapping opportunity generated by an Optical Channel Payload Unit (OPU) in a current transport window to one or more Optical Service Unit (OSU) services(page 2, section 1) Example of distribution PBs to OSU: “In each transport period P, it evenly generates 4 mapping chances…”), which satisfy a first scheduling condition, in a first queue, and performing in-queue scheduling on the one or more OSU services, which satisfy the first scheduling condition, in the first queue so as to provide the mapping opportunity to one of the one or more OSU services in the first queue (page 3, section 2) Judgement & scheduling mechanism: “…how to judge and schedule multiple OSU frames to PB…”; page 3, Fig. 2 and paragraphs 1-4);
in a case where there is no OSU service satisfying the first scheduling condition in the first queue, providing the mapping opportunity to one or more OSU services, which satisfy a second scheduling condition, in a second queue, and performing in-queue scheduling on the one or more OSU services, which satisfy the second scheduling condition, in the second queue so as to provide the mapping opportunity to one of the one or more OSU services in the second queue (page 3 Table 1 shows rules and page 4 Fig. 2 shows queues for OSUs and para 1-4 discussed OSU allocated to queues);
updating a remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service which gets the mapping opportunity, wherein a service mapping opportunity quantity of respective OSU service in one transport window is independently set (Figs. 2 and 3 shows service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU in different time windows; see also discussion on page 4 para 1 to page 5 para 1); and
allocating OSU services entering mapping and multiplexing in the current transport window to the first queue and the second queue according to the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of respective OSU service, wherein the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service assigned to the first queue is greater than the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service assigned to the second queue (Figs2 and 3; page 3, para 2 to page 4, para 4).
Wei et al teaches allocating OSU services entering mapping and multiplexing in the current transport window, as discussed above, and differs from the claimed invention in that Wei et al does not specifically teach that the allocation is performed dynamically. However, it is well known to perform dynamic allocation. Iovanna et al teaches scheduling for optical communication system wherein slot assignment is communicated to the scheduler (para [0044]; “The SAL 260 is configured to communicate the slot assignments required for all the ONTs to the scheduler 258, the scheduler controlling the switch 256 accordingly. In particular, the SAL 260 assigns slots according to the traffic requirements…. In some aspects, the SAL calculates the dynamic sharing level, which is not performed by standard schedulers in packet switches. The SAL then assigns the slots to the users (i.e. ONTs), taking into account of the dynamic sharing level. As such, the SAL provides the slot assignment logics to the scheduler.”) and dynamically allocation of slots (para [0060]; “The operative phase 450 provides for an iterative, or dynamic, re-allocation of slots throughout the network operation period.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the optical communication of Wei et al by dynamically allocating OSU services, as taught by Iovanna et al in order to avoid a buffer being over-filled or to meet latency or QoS requirements of the communication system.
In view of the combination above, although Wei et al does not specifically teach at least one processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor to perform the functions described above, it is well known that those function are performed by at least one processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor. Iovanna et al further teaches at least one processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor (para [0075]; “…the controller 600 comprises a processor 602 (alternatively referred to as processing circuitry), a memory 604 and may also comprise interfaces (not shown). The memory 604 contains instructions executable by the processor 602 such that the controller 600 is operative to conduct some or all of the steps of any method described. The instructions may be stored in the form of a computer program 606. For example, the processor 402 may be implemented by any type of integrated circuit, e.g. ASIC or FPGA etc. The memory may be any suitable memory for the processor, e.g. RAM, ROM, solid state disk, hard disk drive etc.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide at least one processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor to perform the functions described above.
Regarding claim 11, Wei et al teaches an electronic device, comprising:
first providing a mapping opportunity generated by an Optical Channel Payload Unit (OPU) in a current transport window to one or more Optical Service Unit (OSU) services(page 2, section 1) Example of distribution PBs to OSU: “In each transport period P, it evenly generates 4 mapping chances…”), which satisfy a first scheduling condition, in a first queue, and performing in-queue scheduling on the one or more OSU services, which satisfy the first scheduling condition, in the first queue so as to provide the mapping opportunity to one of the one or more OSU services in the first queue (page 3, section 2) Judgement & scheduling mechanism: “…how to judge and schedule multiple OSU frames to PB…”; page 3, Fig. 2 and paragraphs 1-4);
in a case where there is no OSU service satisfying the first scheduling condition in the first queue, providing the mapping opportunity to one or more OSU services, which satisfy a second scheduling condition, in a second queue, and performing in-queue scheduling on the one or more OSU services, which satisfy the second scheduling condition, in the second queue so as to provide the mapping opportunity to one of the one or more OSU services in the second queue (page 3 Table 1 shows rules and page 4 Fig. 2 shows queues for OSUs and para 1-4 discussed OSU allocated to queues);
updating a remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service which gets the mapping opportunity, wherein a service mapping opportunity quantity of respective OSU service in one transport window is independently set (Figs. 2 and 3 shows service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU in different time windows; see also discussion on page 4 para 1 to page 5 para 1); and
allocating OSU services entering mapping and multiplexing in the current transport window to the first queue and the second queue according to the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of respective OSU service, wherein the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service assigned to the first queue is greater than the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service assigned to the second queue (Figs2 and 3; page 3, para 2 to page 4, para 4).
Wei et al teaches allocating OSU services entering mapping and multiplexing in the current transport window, as discussed above, and differs from the claimed invention in that Wei et al does not specifically teach that the allocation is performed dynamically. However, it is well known to perform dynamic allocation. Iovanna et al teaches scheduling for optical communication system wherein slot assignment is communicated to the scheduler (para [0044]; “The SAL 260 is configured to communicate the slot assignments required for all the ONTs to the scheduler 258, the scheduler controlling the switch 256 accordingly. In particular, the SAL 260 assigns slots according to the traffic requirements…. In some aspects, the SAL calculates the dynamic sharing level, which is not performed by standard schedulers in packet switches. The SAL then assigns the slots to the users (i.e. ONTs), taking into account of the dynamic sharing level. As such, the SAL provides the slot assignment logics to the scheduler.”) and dynamically allocation of slots (para [0060]; “The operative phase 450 provides for an iterative, or dynamic, re-allocation of slots throughout the network operation period.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the optical communication of Wei et al by dynamically allocating OSU services, as taught by Iovanna et al in order to avoid a buffer being over-filled or to meet latency or QoS requirements of the communication system.
In view of the combination above, although Wei et al does not specifically teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when being executed by a processor to perform the functions described above, it is well known that those function are performed by computer program stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Iovanna et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when being executed by a processor (para [0075]; “…the controller 600 comprises a processor 602 (alternatively referred to as processing circuitry), a memory 604 and may also comprise interfaces (not shown). The memory 604 contains instructions executable by the processor 602 such that the controller 600 is operative to conduct some or all of the steps of any method described. The instructions may be stored in the form of a computer program 606. For example, the processor 402 may be implemented by any type of integrated circuit, e.g. ASIC or FPGA etc. The memory may be any suitable memory for the processor, e.g. RAM, ROM, solid state disk, hard disk drive etc.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, in order to performed the function described above.
Regarding claim 19, Wei et al teaches wherein when the OSU service enters the mapping and multiplexing in the transport window, the service mapping opportunity quantity Op is assigned as N*C, wherein N is a positive integer, C is the number of payload blocks required by the OSU service to which the service mapping opportunity quantity belongs in one transport period of the OPU (page 2, section 1) Example of distribution PBs to OSU: “In each transport period P, it evenly generates 4 mapping chances…”); Fig. 1 shows N transport windows comprising C payload blocks).
Regarding claim 21, Wei et al teaches wherein dynamically allocating OSU services entering mapping and multiplexing in the current transport window to the first queue and the second queue according to the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of respective OSU service comprises: in a case where the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity of the OSU service satisfies a preset first queue condition, the OSU service enters the first queue; otherwise, the OSU service enters the second queue, wherein the preset first queue condition is whether the remaining service mapping opportunity quantity is greater than zero (page 4, Fig. 2 shows OSUs allocated to different queue and see also discussion on page 4 para 1 to page 5 para 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8, 12-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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. Gareau et al (US Patent No. 10,116,403 B2) is cited to show OTD adaptation for support of substrate granularity and flexibility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALZID E SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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.
DALZID E. SINGH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2635
/DALZID E SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights