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 .
1. This communication is in response to amendments filed on 07/28/2026.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 16, and 21-23 have been amended, claims 2, 7, 9-15, 18-20 and 25 have been cancelled, and claims 8, 17, and 26 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 3-6, 16, and 21-24 are currently rejected.
Claim Objections
2. Applicant’s amendments to claims 21-23 in response to the previously raised claim objection have been considered and obviate previous objection, as such the claim objection is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments asserting that the applied Lin and Sushima references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest all of the elements in the amended independent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks are first directed to the elements of the claims reciting, in the case of detecting that a resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path, sending alarm to a management control unit, and receiving a command indicating withdraw of resource adjustment sent by the management control unit. With regards to these limitations Applicant submits that, in the amended claims, a first network element in a communication path sends alarm to a management control unit when detecting that a resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path so that the management control unit sends a command indicating withdraw of resource adjustment to each network element (including the first network element) in the communication path, whereas Lin relates to a control plane in a node performing a rollback mechanism, specifically sending a rollback indication message to a downstream node, when receiving an adjustment failure indication from a data plane in the node.
In response, it first noted that the claim language is silent regarding any link or relationship between the alarm sent to a management control unit and the management control unit sending the command indicating withdraw of resource adjustment. In other words, the claims lack any indication that one of these limitations occurs as a result of the other, and further the language does not include that the management control unit sends the withdraw command to each network element, as argued. Applicant acknowledges that, in Lin, an adjustment failure indication is sent in response to a bandwidth adjustment failure and that a first node sends a rollback/withdraw indication message to a downstream node, but asserts that Lin fails to disclose the limitations as claimed because Lin teaches a first node, rather than a management control unit, being sent the alarm and sending the withdraw command. It is submitted that the claims lack any description or characteristics of the claimed management control unit that distinguish it from a control plane of a first node in Lin. For example, Applicant’s arguments state that Lin is silent about sending an alarm to an external management control unit, however this language is not included in the claims. Lin’s teachings of a control plane of a node receiving a failure indication and, in response, sending a rollback indication to downstream nodes is within the scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation of an alarm sent to a management control unit in the case of detected a resource adjustment failure, and a downstream node receiving a command indicating withdraw of the resource adjustment.
Although it is submitted that these teachings of Lin are sufficiently obvious to teach the claimed limitations, it was previously acknowledged that Lin does not explicitly disclose a particular node sending the alarm to a distinct management control unit, and it is the Sushima reference which is relied upon for expressly teaching a first network element sending an alarm to a designated management control unit in the case of detecting an adjustment fault. Applicant submits that Sushima discloses a scheme in which a storage module is responsible for assigning services to server modules and sending a notification to a management server when an error in configuration adjustment occurs. Applicant argues that, because Sushima relates to interaction between a server module and a storage module in an information processing system, Sushima is not concerned with interaction between network elements and a management control unit managing the network elements in a communication system and therefore those skilled in the art would not be motivated to modify Lin to enable a node to send alarm to a management control unit.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is submitted that the server module and storage module of Sushima are within the scope of network elements and, similarly to both Lin and the claimed invention, Sushima expressly discloses these elements are interconnected via a network. Both Lin and Sushima are directed to making network resource configuration changes, and Sushima is relied upon for teaching notifying a distinct management server of detected errors, which would be an obvious implementation in order to efficiently identify failures and centrally administer a response across a network.
Lastly, Applicant argues that Lin fails to disclose, “in the case that the resource adjustment is bandwidth increase and that the first network element has finished the resource adjustment, performing adjustment processing of bandwidth decrease with a fourth network element, wherein the fourth network element is in the communication path, and is downstream to the first network element”. In amended claim 1 this entire limitation recites, in the case that the resource adjustment that has been finished is bandwidth decrease, the first network element performs bandwidth increase with a third network element upstream to the first network element in the communication path, and in the case that the resource adjustment that has been finished is bandwidth increase and that the first network element has finished the resource adjustment, the first network element performs bandwidth decrease with a fourth network element downstream to the first network element in the communication path. It is noted that the “or” language of this limitation only requires one of these scenarios to occur. Applicant submits that the claim language limits the sequential relationship of the withdraw processing in the communication path to prevent the withdraw processing from affecting the service, such as packet loss, however this is merely an intended result of the claimed functionality and the claims lack any language incorporating this features into the claim limitations. In response to Applicant’s assertion that Lin is silent about a counterparty with which the deletion is performed and about performing the rollback with a specific sequence in the communication path, it is submitted that Lin does in fact teach precisely this. Specifically, equivalent to the claim language, the cited portion of Lin describes a PathTear message sent sequentially downstream node by node when a bandwidth adjustment is unsuccessful. In response to the PathTear message, in the case that the bandwidth adjustment was an increase by adding a tributary slot between nodes, a rollback operation is performed to delete the previously added tributary slot and decrease the bandwidth to a link bandwidth from before the unsuccessful adjustment. Similarly to the argued claim limitation, Lin explicitly describes these operations performed between a node and a downstream node in a communication path.
It is therefore submitted that the combination of references teach each of the claimed limitations, as currently recited, and the rejection is therefore maintained.
Comments Regarding Examination
4. Applicant has requested rejoinder of claims 8, 17, and 26, previously withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected group, on the basis that amended claim 8 is allowable at least for similar reasons as amended claim 1.
As noted above, it is submitted that the amendments to claim 1 do not overcome rejection in view of the prior art and therefore do not constitute allowable subject matter sufficient to obviate the previous grounds for a restriction. It is therefore maintained that claims 8, 17 and 26 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
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.
5. Claims 1, 3-6, 16, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2013/0243427) in view of Sushima et al. (US 2004/0210646).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a path resource adjustment method, performed by a first network element in a communication path, the communication path comprising a plurality of network elements, the method comprising:
in the case of detecting that a resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path, an alarm is sent to a management control unit (If the control plane receives a tributary slot adjustment failure indication or an ODUflex bit rate adjustment failure indication sent by the data plane, [0074]);
receiving a command indicating withdraw of resource adjustment sent by the management control unit (The first node of the ODUflex path sends a rollback indication message along the ODUflex path downstream node by node, [0075], [0131]; the node A sends the PathTear message to the downstream node by node, indicates deletion of the control state corresponding to the LSP after adjustment, [0162]; a first receiving unit 96, configured to receive a rollback indication message that is sent by the first node of the ODUflex path along the ODUflex path downstream node by node, [0196]); and
in the case that the resource adjustment is bandwidth decrease and that the first network element has finished the resource adjustment, performing adjustment processing of bandwidth increase with a third network element, wherein the third network element is in the communication path, and is upstream to the first network element; or in the case that the resource adjustment is bandwidth increase and that the first network element has finished the resource adjustment, performing adjustment processing of bandwidth decrease with a fourth network element (if successful, needs to run the LCR protocol again, and deletes a previously added tributary slot from a link connection, [0162]), wherein the fourth network element (node C of FIG. 5) is in the communication path, and is downstream to the first network element (node B of FIG. 5).
However, Lin does not explicitly disclose the first network element sending alarm to the management control unit in the case of detecting that the resource adjustment fault has occurred.
Sushima teaches a method, performed by a first network element, comprising:
in a case of detecting that a resource adjustment fault has occurred in a communication path, sending alarm to a management control unit (if the configuration information notification packet does not arrive within a predetermined period of time, the management server 150 is notified of an error, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a network device to notify a management entity of an error detected by a network device in the system/method of Lin as suggested by Sushima during a time when the network device is processing configuration changes. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because providing error detection parameters, such as timeouts, to network devices would enable earlier and more efficient detection of adjustment failures, allowing the management entity to address and rollback necessary changes sooner.
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting that a resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path comprises:
sending resource adjustment request to a second network element (the node B selects one new idle tributary slot in the link B-C, for example, a tributary slot numbered 4, and sends a Path message to a node C, [0146]), wherein the second network element is a network element (node C of FIG. 5), which is adjacent to the first network element (node B of FIG. 5), of the plurality of network elements (see FIG. 5); and
sending a resource adjustment reply sent by the second network element (the node C may send a Resv message to the node B after successfully determining the tributary slot to be added in the link B-C, [0153]).
However, although Lin teaches a resource adjustment fault when node A does not receive a BWR response message before a time expires, Lin does not explicitly disclose the first network element detecting the resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path in the case that the resource adjustment reply sent by the second network element is not received before a preset timer expires.
Sushima teaches the method, performed by the first network element, comprising:
in the case that a resource adjustment reply sent by a second network element is not received before a preset timer expires (If the storage module 140 does not transmit a response packet within a predetermined period of time after it receives a configuration information notification packet from a server module 100, [0049]), detecting that the resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path (an error is reported to the management server 150, [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a network device to notify a management entity of an error detected by a network device in the system/method of Lin as suggested by Sushima during a time when the network device is processing configuration changes. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because providing error detection parameters, such as timeouts, to network devices would enable earlier and more efficient detection of adjustment failures, allowing the management entity to address and rollback necessary changes sooner.
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting that a resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path comprises:
sending resource adjustment request to a second network element (the node B selects one new idle tributary slot in the link B-C, for example, a tributary slot numbered 4, and sends a Path message to a node C, [0146]), wherein the second network element is a network element (node C of FIG. 5), which is adjacent to the first network element (node B of FIG. 5), of the plurality of network elements (see FIG. 5); and
sending a resource adjustment reply sent by the second network element (the node C may send a Resv message to the node B after successfully determining the tributary slot to be added in the link B-C, [0153]).
However, although Lin teaches a resource adjustment fault when node A does not receive a BWR response message before a time expires, Lin does not explicitly disclose the first network device resenting the resource adjustment request to the second network element in the case that the resource adjustment reply sent by the second network element is not received before a preset timer expires, or in the case that a number of times of resending reaches a preset number and the resource adjustment reply sent by the second network element is still not received before the preset timer expires, detecting that the resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path.
Sushima teaches the method, performed by the first network device, comprising:
in the case that a resource adjustment reply sent by a second network element is not received before a preset timer expires, resending a resource adjustment request to the second network element (If the storage module 140 does not transmit a response packet within a predetermined period of time after it receives a configuration information notification packet from a server module 100, the server module 100 retransmits the configuration information notification packet, [0049]); and
in the case that a number of times of resending reaches a preset number and the resource adjustment reply sent by the second network element is still not received before the preset timer expires, detecting that a resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path (If a predetermined transmission count is exceeded, an error is reported to the management server 150, [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a network device to notify a management entity of an error detected by a network device in the system/method of Lin as suggested by Sushima during a time when the network device is processing configuration changes. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because providing error detection parameters, such as timeouts, to network devices would enable earlier and more efficient detection of adjustment failures, allowing the management entity to address and rollback necessary changes sooner.
Regarding claim 5, Lin does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting that a resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path comprises, in the case that an adjustment failure occurs during resource adjustment performed by the first network element, detecting that the resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path.
Sushima teaches in the case that an adjustment failure occurs during resource adjustment performed by the first network element (a server module 100 transmits a configuration information notification packet, [0046]), detecting that the resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path (If a predetermined transmission count is exceeded, an error is reported to the management server 150. An error is also reported to the management server 150 if the assignment of a server module matching the system configuration information stored by the storage module 140 fails, [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a network device to notify a management entity of an error detected during configuration adjustment of the network device in the system/method of Lin as suggested by Sushima. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because allowing the network device to report as soon as an error is detected would enable earlier and more efficient detection of adjustment failures, allowing the management entity to address and rollback necessary changes sooner.
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performing withdraw processing on resource adjustment of the first network element based on the command comprises:
in the case that the first network element has finished the resource adjustment, performing resource rollback processing (if successful, needs to run the LCR protocol again, and deletes a previously added tributary slot from a link connection, [0162]); or
in the case that the first network element has not finished the resource adjustment, deleting resource adjustment configuration information (if unsuccessful, does not need to perform a rollback operation on a control plane. In addition, each node on the ODUflex path further deletes the control state corresponding to the LSP after adjustment and is created on the control plane previously, [0162]).
Apparatus claim 16 discloses limitations equivalent to those of method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in view of the same rationale.
Apparatus claim 21 discloses limitations equivalent to those of method claim 3, and is therefore rejected in view of the same rationale.
Apparatus claim 22 discloses limitations equivalent to those of method claim 4, and is therefore rejected in view of the same rationale.
Apparatus claim 23 discloses limitations equivalent to those of method claim 5, and is therefore rejected in view of the same rationale.
Apparatus claim 24 discloses limitations equivalent to those of method claim 6, and is therefore rejected in view of the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. US 2023/0319445 – a management server issuing a command for bandwidth adjustment, sequentially sent downstream, performing a rollback operation when an adjustment error occurs, and reporting an adjustment result to the network management server.
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 MADHU WOOLCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, Thursday 9-6 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, Chris Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
MADHU WOOLCOCK
Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/MADHU WOOLCOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights