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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 29, 2026 have been entered. Applicant amended claims 11, 18, 25, and cancelled 1-10. Claims 11-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 29, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action dated October 29, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, in page 11 of the Remarks, “Yang fails to describe or suggest the "without coordinating" limitation because its system relies on active messaging to the switch to make a change. Specifically, Yang states that the " optical network unit sends an automatic protection switching message to the aggregation side switch device ... so that the aggregation side switch device performs switching," (Yang at 0025), such that Yang coordinates with the switch device as stated in the previously submitted response.”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s interpretation of the “without coordinating” is improper. The limitation requires the CPE detects the fault on the working path and switches to the protection path without coordinating the aggregation switch. Yang, paragraph 0056, discloses switching to the protection path by the ONU based on the fault detection by the ONU. As soon as the fault is detected by the ONU, it immediately switches to the protection path. Therefore, while the fault monitoring is carried out using periodic CCM as claimed, the switching to the protection path by ONU is carried out without further communication with the CP switch. After switching ,the ONU sends automatic protection switching message to the CP switch so that the CP switch prepares itself for switching to the protection path. Yang does not teach a second aggregation switch. Fig, 2 of Kang discloses switch 122 and a second switch 132 with working path 114 and a protection path 116 with CPE 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to incorporate the teaching of Kang about protection path using a second aggregation switch. Such incorporation would modify Yang to include a second aggregation switch and therefore the disclosure of Yang about switching to the protection path without coordination with the CP switch would be modified as switching to the protection path without coordination with the second aggregation switch . One would be motivated to use protection path using a second aggregation switch to have the protection path unharmed in case of failure of the working aggregation switch (see paragraph 0006 and 0019 of Kang).
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase ”maintenance entity group end point ("maintenance entity group end point (MEP)"”, in claims 18, should be replaced with “maintenance entity group end point (MEP)” . Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-29 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 recites the limitation “causing, by the CPE, downstream traffic directed to the CPE to switch over to the protection communication path based on upstream transmissions by the CPE over the protection communication path”. The limitation is ambiguous. The downstream traffic is directed towards the CPE. It is not clear how the CPE can switch over the downstream traffic to the protection communication path since the downstream traffic is not transmitted by the CPE.
Independent claims 18 and 25 recite similar limitations.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiency from respective independent claims.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-15, 18-22, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20150365742 A1), hereinafter, Yang, in view of Kang (US PGPUB No. US 20130259467 A1), Kang.
Regarding claim 11:
Yang teaches:
A method of communication resilience in a network, comprising:
establishing a working communication path between an aggregation switch and a customer premises equipment (CPE), wherein the working communication path communicatively traverses a passive optical network (PON) optical line terminal (OLT) and wherein a maintenance entity group (MEP) end point of the aggregation switch is communicatively coupled with a MEP end point of the CPE (Fig. 3 shows working communication path between CP switch (aggregation switch) and ONU (CPE), wherein the working communication path communicatively traverse OLT1 (OLT) and the CP switch. Paragraph 0074 discloses OLT1 is a PON OLT. Paragraph 0049 discloses the ONU and the CP switch communicative coupled through respective MEP as stated “Specifically, the monitoring packet may be a CCM (Continuity Check Message), and a Maintenance association End Point MEP (Maintenance association End Point) is disposed on the ONU, so that the CCM may be transmitted through the MEP on each link, corresponding to the MEP, between the ONU and the CP Switch.”. Also see paragraph 0111 stating “The present invention further provides an aggregation side switch device 2, and as shown in FIG. 10, the device includes: a monitoring unit 21, configured to transmit a monitoring packet through a first Maintenance association End Point on a first link connected to an optical network unit, so as to monitor the first link” );
establishing a protection communication path between [[a second aggregation switch]] and the CPE, wherein the protection communication path traverses a second OLT and wherein a second MEP of the aggregation switch or the second aggregation switch is communicatively coupled with a second MEP of the CP (Fig. 3 shows protection communication path between CP switch and ONU , wherein the protection communication path communicatively traverse OLT2 (second OLT) and the CP switch. Paragraph 0051 discloses second MEP of the ONU as stated “a link, between the OLT 2 and the CP Switch, on which a second MEP of the ONU is disposed is a second link, a link between the ONU and the OLT 2 is a first sub-link of the second link, ”. Paragraph 0111 discloses second MEP of the CP switch as stated “a receiving unit 22, configured to receive an automatic protection switching message that is sent through a second Maintenance association End Point on a second link by the optical network unit”);
wherein the CPE is configured to transmit and receive data on the working communication path and monitors the working communication path and the protection communication path in a non-fault state (paragraph 0042 discloses the ONU communicates on the working communication path and monitor the protection communication path as stated “101: An optical network unit transmits a monitoring packet through a first Maintenance association End Point on a first link connected to the optical network unit and an aggregation side switch device, so as to monitor the first link, where the first link includes a first sub-link between the optical network unit and a first optical line terminal, and a second sub-link between the first optical line terminal and the aggregation side switch device”);
detecting, by the CPE, a network fault on the working communication path by monitoring continuity check messages (CCMs) generated by the MEP end point of the aggregation switch received over the working communication path, wherein the detection of the network fault on the working communication path by the CPE is performed without coordinating with the [[second]] aggregation switch, and wherein the detected network fault corresponds to non-responsiveness of (i) the MEP of the aggregation switch or (ii) the MEP of the CPE (paragraph 0043 discloses detecting link fault of the working communication path as stated “The optical network unit performs switching from the first sub-link of the first link to a first sub-link of a second link if it is detected that a link fault occurs on the first link, where the second link is a link, except the first link, between the optical network unit and the aggregation side switch device, and the first sub-link of the second link is a link between the optical network unit and a second optical line terminal”. Paragraph 0049 discloses the ONU and the CP switch both used continuity check message for monitoring detection of fault in the working path is performed without considering the protection path); and
responding to the network fault on the working communication path by promoting, by the CPE, the protection communication path to an active state, wherein the promotion of the protection communication path to the active state is performed without coordinating with the [[second]] aggregation switch (paragraphs 0044-0045 disclose switching to the protection communication path due to link fault of the working communication path. Paragraph 0056 discloses switching to protection path is done by the ONU based on the fault detection by the ONU. As soon as the fault is detected the ONU switches to the protection path. Therefore, while the fault monitoring is carried out be using periodic CCM, the switching to the protection path by ONU is carried out without further communication with the CP switch); and
causing, by the CPE, downstream traffic directed to the CPE to switch over to the protection communication path based on upstream transmissions by the CPE over the protection communication path (Fig. 3 shows traffic is switched to the protection path in both directions).
While Yang teaches establishing a protection communication path between the aggregation switch and the CPE, wherein the promotion of the protection communication path to the active state is performed without coordinating with the aggregation switch (as shown above),
Yang does not teach a second aggregation switch.
Kang teaches a second aggregation switch (Fig. 2 shows switch 122 and a second switch 132 (second aggregation switch) with working path 114 and a protection path 116 with CPE 12 as explained in paragraphs 0018-0019. Paragraph 0033 discloses dual-parenting wherein switching to the protection path 2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to incorporate the teaching of Kang about the protection path using a second aggregation switch. Such incorporation would modify Yang to include a second aggregation switch and therefore the disclosure of Yang about switching to the protection path without coordination with the CP switch would be modified as switching to the protection path without coordination with the second aggregation switch . One would be motivated to use protection path using a second aggregation switch to have the protection path unharmed in case of failure of the working aggregation switch (see paragraph 0006 and 0019 of Kang).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yang in view Kang teach all the limitations of claim 11 as shown above.
Yang further teaches wherein detecting a network fault on the working communication path based on non-responsiveness of the MEP of the aggregation switch or the MEP of the CPE further comprises monitoring the working communication path using continuity check messages generated by the MEP of the aggregation switch (paragraph 0049 discloses the ONU and the CP switch both used continuity check message for monitoring).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Yang in view of Kang teach all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Yang further teaches wherein the continuity check messages include status information about a local port and a physical interface (paragraph 0050 discloses CCM includes link status information).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yang in view of Kang teach all the limitations of claim 11 as shown above.
Yang further teaches wherein the MEP of the aggregation switch sends a remote defect indication (RDI) notification to the CPE based on a determination that the aggregation switch has detected a communication fault in the working communication path (paragraph 0086 and 0087 discloses the CP switch detects the fault and send notification to the ONU).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yang in view of Kang teach all the limitations of claim 11 as shown above.
Yang further teaches wherein a communication path exists between each physical interface of aggregation switch and the OLT (Fig. 3 shows communication paths between the CP switch and the OLT1).
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 11. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 12. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 13. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 14. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 22 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 15. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25:
Claim 25 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, upon execution by one or more data processing apparatus, cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform the method of claim 11. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 26 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the method of claim 12. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 27 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the method of claim 13. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 28 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the method of claim 14. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 16, 17, 23, 24, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Kang and further in view of Nors (US PGPUB No. US 20120195589 A), hereinafter, Noris.
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yang in view of Kang teach all the limitations of claim 11 as shown above.
Yang further teaches wherein promoting, at the aggregation switch, the protection communication path comprises: switching upstream traffic from the CPE to the aggregation switch from the working communication path to the protection communication path; [[learning a media access control (MAC) address of a port coupled to the protection path at the CPE]]; and sending downstream traffic from the aggregation switch to the port at the CPE (paragprhe 0086 discloses switching the upstream traffic to the protection link. Paragraph 101 discloses sending all traffic to the protection link ).
Yang does not explicitly teach learning a media access control (MAC) address of a port coupled to the protection path at the CPE.
Nors teaches learning a media access control (MAC) address of a port coupled to the protection path at the CPE (paragprhe 0063 discloses learning MAC address after detecting fault in primary path ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to incorporate the teaching Nors about learning MAC address after detecting fault in primary path. One would be motivated to correctly forward traffic to the client after switching to protection path (see paragraph 0020 and 0050 of Nors).
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yang in view of Kang teach all the limitations of claim 11 as shown above.
Yang does not teach further comprising sending, by the CPE, a gratuitous address resolution protocol (ARP) containing Internet protocol (IP) address and media access control (MAC) address information.
Nors teaches further comprising sending, by the CPE, a gratuitous address resolution protocol (ARP) containing Internet protocol (IP) address and media access control (MAC) address information (see at least paragraphs 0032 and 0033 discussing sending a gratuitous ARP containing IP address and MAC address information ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to incorporate the teaching Nors about sending a gratuitous ARP. One would be motivated to do that to correctly forward traffic to the client after switching to protection path (see paragraph 0020 and 0050 of Nors).
Claim 23 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 16. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 24 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 17. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 29 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the method of claim 16. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 30 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the method of claim 17. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
February 13, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444