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 § 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 1-5, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 27, 44, 45 and 49 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.
Claim 1 states “interactive content”. This limitation is vague and confusing. It isn’t apparent from the claim what comprises “interactive” content i.e. what type of information or signal being relayed. Furthermore, the claim states “method applied to an ONR”. It is unclear whether the claimed method is performed by the ONR, executed on ONR hardware or merely associated with it.
Claim 2 states “the current ONR”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Furthermore, claim 2 depends on claim 1, which already comprises an ONR. Is the current ONR of claim 2 different from the ONR utilized in claim 1?
Claim 3 states in the first two paragraphs “wherein relaying the interactive content between the OLT and the ONU comprises: according to discovery information of a discovered ONU, sending final identity information, which is assigned to the discovered ONU by the OLT corresponding to the current ONR, to the discovered ONU; and storing the final identity information of the discovered ONU”. The claim states “the ONU” and further states “a discovered ONU”. Is “the ONU” not the same as the discovered one? Furthermore, claim 3 depends on claim 1 where there is already a discovered ONU but claim 3 seems to discover another ONU. How many ONU’s are being processed within these limitations? Furthermore, the claim states “final identity information”. What comprises “final” information as opposed to initial information? There is also no limitation pertaining to an initial information for a final information to follow. Moreover, line 2 of the claim states “wherein relaying the interactive content…comprises” and 6 states “storing the final identity”. How can a relaying process somehow comprise storing? Claim 3 also states “a moment”. This limitation lacks clarity has it is not apparent whether a specific and unique point in time is intended.
Claim 4 states “receiving the final identity information assigned to the discovered ONU by the OLT”. Claim 3 already states that the OLT is assigning the final ID but in claim 4 the OLT is receiving this ID? This limitation is confusing.
Claim 5 states “assigning temporary identity information”. What is performing this step? The OLT or the ONR? There is also insufficient antecedent basis for “the locally stored temporary identity information” and it is also confusing from the claims what comprises a temporary identity information and a final identity information. Are these in any way related to each other?
Claim 10 suffers from insufficient antecedent basis issues. Claim 10 depends on claim 3 which comprises multiple “or” statements. The examiner has selected limitations within claim 3 that do not correspond to the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 13 and 14 suffer from insufficient antecedent basis issues. Claim 13 depends on claim 3 which comprises multiple “or” statements. The examiner has selected limitations within claim 3 that do not correspond to the limitations of claim 13.
Claim 16 states “method applied to an OLT”. It is unclear whether the claimed method is performed by the OLT, executed on OLT hardware or merely associated with it.
Claim 17 states throughout the claim “the ONU discovered by the ONR”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Further limitations state “assigning the final identity information to the corresponding ONU”. It isn’t clear if the discovered ONU is the corresponding ONU or another separate ONU. Furthermore, the claim appears to comprise limitations out of order i.e. a response message limitation seems to be stated prior to a request message limitation. The scope of the invention is confusing and unclear within this claim.
Claim 23 states “the current ONR”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. the claim states “method applied to an ONR”. It is unclear whether the claimed method is performed by the ONR, executed on ONR hardware or merely associated with it.
Claim 24 states “a second present duration range”. This limitation is unclear as there is no “first present duration stage”.
Claim 25 states “through analysis”. This limitation is vague and confusing. What sort of analysis is this?
Claim 27 suffers from insufficient antecedent basis issues. Claim 27 depends on claim 25 which comprises multiple “or” statements. The examiner has selected limitations within claim 25 that do not correspond to the limitations of claim 27.
Claim 44 states “when the at least one first controller calls the first computer-executable program, the ONU registration method of claim 1 is implemented”. These limitations are vague and confusing. How can a controller “call” anything? Furthermore, claim 1 is a method claim already applied to an ONR. Is the ONR of claim 44 a different one?
Claim 45 states “when the at least one second controller calls the third computer-executable program, the ONU registration method of claim 16 is implemented”. These limitations are vague and confusing. How can a controller “call” anything? Furthermore, there are limitations pertaining to a second storage module and a third computer-executable program. Does the OLT not comprise a first storage module and a first computer-executable program? Furthermore, claim 16 is a method claim already applied to an OLT. Is the OLT of claim 45 a different one?
Claim 49 states “when the at least one first controller calls the second computer-executable program, the ONU registration method of claim 1 is implemented”. These limitations are vague and confusing. How can a controller “call” anything? Furthermore, there are limitations pertaining to a second computer-executable program. Does the ONR not comprise a first computer-executable program? Furthermore, claim 1 is a method claim already applied to an ONR. Is the ONR of claim 49 a different one?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 33, 44, 45, 47 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hu (EP 2618508).
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches an Optical Network Unit (ONU) registration method applied to an Optical Network Relay (ONR), comprising: relaying an interactive content between an Optical Line terminal (OLT) and an ONU (Fig. 5, OLT 30, ONR 32, ONU 38), so as to enable the ONU and the OLT to complete discovery and ranging processes (Claim 2: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, a distance measuring request that is sent by the OLT to the ONU; receiving, by the relay apparatus, a distance measuring response message that is returned by the ONU as a response to the distance measuring request; deducting, by the relay apparatus, a delay of transmitting the distance measuring response message in an optical transport network, OTN, device from time of receiving the distance measuring response message to generate a new distance measuring response message and send it to the OLT; forwarding, by the relay apparatus, to the ONU, an equalization delay value that is calculated by the OLT according to arrival time of the distance measuring response message; and forwarding, by the relay apparatus, a reply message that is returned by the ONU to the OLT after the ONU receives the equalization delay value, thereby activating the ONU).
Regarding claim 3, Hu teaches the ONU registration method of claim 1, wherein relaying the interactive content between the OLT and the ONU comprises: according to discovery information of a discovered ONU, sending final identity information, which is assigned to the discovered ONU by the OLT corresponding to the current ONR, to the discovered ONU (Claim 1: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, an identifier that is allocated by the OLT for the ONU…); and storing the final identity information of the discovered ONU (Fig. 4, within buffer 334).
Regarding claim 4, Hu teaches the ONU registration method of claim 3, wherein sending, according to the discovery information of the discovered ONU, the final identity information, which is assigned to the discovered ONU by the OLT corresponding to the current ONR, to the discovered ONU comprises: sending the discovery information of the discovered ONU to the OLT (Fig. 5 and paragraph [0044], the ONU activation process comprises sending messages from the ONU to the relay apparatus); receiving the final identity information assigned to the discovered ONU by the OLT; and sending the final identity information to the discovered ONU (Claim 1: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, an identifier that is allocated by the OLT for the ONU…).
Regarding claim 16, Hu teaches an ONU registration method applied to an OLT, comprising: coordinating with an ONR (Fig. 5, OLT 30, ONR 32, ONU 38) to assign final identity information to an ONU (Claim 1: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, an identifier that is allocated by the OLT for the ONU…).
Regarding claim 17, Hu teaches the ONU registration method of claim 16, wherein coordinating with the ONR to assign the final identity information to the ONU comprises: according to discovery information of the ONU discovered by the ONR corresponding to the current OLT, assigning the final identity information to the corresponding ONU; and, sending the final identity information to the ONR corresponding to the current OLT (Fig. 5 and paragraph [0044], the ONU activation process comprises sending messages from the ONU to the relay apparatus), so as to enable the ONR to forward the final identity information to the corresponding ONU (Claim 1: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, an identifier that is allocated by the OLT for the ONU…).
Regarding claim 18, Hu teaches the ONU registration method of claim 17, further comprising: before assigning, according to the discovery information of the ONU discovered by the ONR corresponding to the current OLT, the final identity information to the corresponding ONU, receiving the discovery information of the ONU discovered by the ONR sent by the ONR (Claim 1: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, an identifier that is allocated by the OLT for the ONU…).
Regarding claim 23, Hu teaches a communication method applied to an ONR, comprising: receiving to-be-relayed information (Claim 2: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, a distance measuring request that is sent by the OLT to the ONU; receiving, by the relay apparatus, a distance measuring response message that is returned by the ONU as a response to the distance measuring request; deducting, by the relay apparatus, a delay of transmitting the distance measuring response message in an optical transport network, OTN, device from time of receiving the distance measuring response message to generate a new distance measuring response message and send it to the OLT; forwarding, by the relay apparatus, to the ONU, an equalization delay value that is calculated by the OLT according to arrival time of the distance measuring response message; and forwarding, by the relay apparatus, a reply message that is returned by the ONU to the OLT after the ONU receives the equalization delay value, thereby activating the ONU), which is sent from an OLT or an ONU (Fig. 5, OLT 30, ONR 32, ONU 38), wherein the ONU is an ONU registered at the OLT through the current ONR and has final identity information assigned by the OLT through the current ONR (Claim 1: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, an identifier that is allocated by the OLT for the ONU…); and relaying the to-be-relayed information between the OLT and the ONU registered at the OLT through the current ONR, wherein the final identity information of the ONU is stored in the current ONR (Fig. 4, within buffer 334).
Regarding claim 24, Hu teaches the communication method of claim 23, wherein a time difference between a moment of receiving the to-be-relayed information and a moment of relaying the to-be-relayed information is within a second preset duration range (Fig. 5 shows time difference between messages sent and received from the OLT to the ONU via the ONR).
Regarding claim 25, Hu teaches the communication method of claim 23, further comprising: wherein the method further comprises: allocating an uplink bandwidth to an ONU downstream from the current ONR (paragraph [0025], upstream bandwidth authorization information…).
Regarding claim 33, Hu teaches the communication method of claim 23, wherein relaying the to-be-relayed information between the OLT and the ONU registered at the OLT through the current ONR comprises: relaying and forwarding the to-be-relayed information at a same position in a service period (As per claim 23, the information is relayed and forwarded to the same ONU as the one registered at the OLT).
Regarding claim 44, Hu teaches an ONR, comprising: a first storage module having stored thereon a first computer executable program; and at least one first controller, wherein, when the at least one first controller calls the first computer-executable program, the ONU registration method of claim 1 is implemented (Hu teaches this in claim 1 since the ONR comprises processors that perform steps as required by the claim).
Regarding claim 45, Hu teaches an OLT, comprising: a second storage module having stored thereon a third computer-executable program; and at least one second controller, wherein, when the at least one second controller calls the third computer-executable program, the ONU registration method of claim 16 is implemented (Hu teaches this in claim 16 since the OLT comprises processors that perform steps as required by the claim).
Regarding claim 47, Hu teaches an optical communication system (Fig. 5), comprising an OLT, an ONR, and an ONU, wherein the OLT corresponds to at least one ONR, the ONR corresponds to at least one ONU, the OLT communicates with the at least one ONR corresponding to the OLT, and the ONR communicates with the at least one ONU corresponding to the ONR (Fig. 5, OLT 30, ONR 32, ONU 38); wherein the ONU is registered at the OLT through the ONR and has final identity information assigned by the OLT through the ONR and the final identity information of the ONU is stored in the ONR (Claim 1: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, an identifier that is allocated by the OLT for the ONU…), wherein, the ONR is the ONR of claim 44; the OLT is configured to coordinate with the ONR to assign the final identity information to the ONU (Claim 1: forwarding, by the relay apparatus, an identifier that is allocated by the OLT for the ONU…), and the ONU is configured to provide discovery information to the ONR which discovers the ONU (Fig. 5 and paragraph [0044], the ONU activation process comprises sending messages from the ONU to the relay apparatus), and receive the final identity information sent by the ONR, so as to enable the ONU to be registered at the OLT through the ONR (receiving assigned ONU_ID from the relay module at the ONU).
Regarding claim 49, An ONR, comprising: a first storage module having stored thereon a second computer-executable program; and at least one first controller, wherein, when the at least one first controller calls the second computer-executable program, the communication method of claim 23 is implemented (Hu teaches this in claim 23 since the ONR comprises processors that perform steps as required by the claim).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (EP 2618508).
Regarding claim 2, Hu teaches the ONU registration method of claim 1, further comprising: before relaying the interactive content between the OLT and the ONU so as to enable the ONU and the OLT to complete the discovery and ranging processes, completing discovery and ranging processes by the current ONR and the OLT. Fig. 5 shows the flow chart during an ONU activation process with the OLT. Although Fig. 5 doesn’t show the discovery and ranging process between the ONR and OLT, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that in order for the OLT and ONR to communicate, the discovery and ranging process had to have taken place already before being able to discover and range the ONU.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANESH K BARUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1017. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat: 11-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 5712723024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRANESH K BARUA/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights