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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 19, 2026 have been entered. Claims 11, 18, and 25 have been amended. Claims 1-10 were previously cancelled. Claims 11-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 19, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated February 19 have been fully considered.
The amendments overcome the previous objection to claim 18. Therefore, the previous objection to claim 18 is withdrawn.
The amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues, in page 12 of the Remarks, “In contrast, the claimed solution does not require this explicit coordination. Instead, the claimed solution facilitates the routing of downstream traffic "based on MAC learning triggered by upstream data packets sent by the CPE." Here, the CPE does not send a specialized command or protection protocol message to the switch. It simply transmits data-plane traffic over the protection path. The aggregation switch, performing Layer 2 bridging operations, observes the CPE's MAC address arriving on a new port and automatically updates its forwarding tables. For at least these reasons, Yang fails to suggest an aggregation switch routing downstream traffic based on MAC learning triggered by upstream data packets, as Yang requires the aggregation switch to process specialized control-plane instructions to perform switching.”
In response, Yang is not applied to teach the MAC leaning. There are server ways the CP switch can learn about path switching. Yang disclosure of the ONU sending automatic protection switching message to the CP switch for switching to protection path is one of the several ways. Nors is applied to teach switching to protection path by MAC leaning.
Applicant argues, in page 13 of the Remarks, “Although only cited with respect to dependent claims, combining Nors with Yang and Kang also fails to arrive at the claimed solution. Nors explicitly requires an intermediary node to artificially proxy update messages, which teaches away from relying on the CPE's own upstream data transmissions. Nors recognizes the need to update upstream switches after a protection switch, but explicitly states at 0006 that because the link to the client is maintained, "client devices will not notice the switch and will not send any messages". (Nors at 0006). Because Nors assumes the client device (CPE) remains completely oblivious and silent, Nors's solution dictates that the optical terminal (ONT/ONU) must act as a proxy. Specifically, Nors at 0039 requires the ONT/ONU to generate Gratuitous ARP messages "on behalf of the connected client device(s)". (Nors at 0039). Nors therefore relies on an intermediary network node actively spoofing a message on behalf of connected devices to force an update. The claimed solution, however, explicitly recites that the switchover is based on MAC learning triggered by "upstream data packets sent by the CPE" itself. (Claim 11). Because Nors's mechanism is entirely predicated on the assumption that the CPE cannot and will not send these messages, even if combined with Yang and Kang, Nors fails to teach or suggest the claimed mechanism of the CPE itself sending the upstream data packets that trigger the MAC learning.”.
In response, Applicant’s verbose digression to the ONU as proxy is irrelevant. The problem in hand is how the CP switch can aware of the protection switching and therefore can direct downstream traffic to the protection path since the ONU already switched to the protection path. Paragraph 0039 of Nors discloses the ONU sends ARP message over the protection path so that the switch can learn the MAC address to direct downstream traffic towards the ONU. Paragraph 0010 discloses MAC address can also be learned from upstream traffic.
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 11-30 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, and further in view of Nors (US PGPUB No. US 20120195589 A), hereinafter, Nors.
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, the aggregation switch or the second aggregation switch to route downstream traffic directed to the CPE to switch over the protection communication path [[based on Media Access Control (MAC) learning triggered by upstream data packet transmissions by the CPE over the protection communication path]] (Fig. 3 shows traffic is switched to the protection path in both directions. Paragraphs 0059-0061 disclose the ONU causes the CP switch to direct downstream traffic to the protection path).
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).
Yang does not teach based on Media Access Control (MAC) learning triggered by upstream data packet transmissions by the CPE over the protection communication path.
Nors teaches based on Media Access Control (MAC) learning triggered by upstream data packet transmissions by the CPE over the protection communication path (paragraph 0039 discloses the ONU send ARP message over the protection path so that the switch can learn the MAC address to direct downstream traffic towards the ONU. Paragraph 0010 discloses MAC address can also be re-learned from upstream traffic).
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 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yang in view Kang and Nors 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 and Nors 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 and Nors 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 and Nors 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).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yang in view of Kang and Nors 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 (paragraph 0039 discloses the ONU send ARP message over the protection path so that the switch can learn the MAC address to direct downstream traffic towards the ONU. Paragraph 0010 discloses MAC address can also be learned from upstream traffic).
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 and Nors 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).
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.
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.
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.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
June 25, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights