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 claims filed on 03/19/2026.
Claims 10-15, 18 and 19 were previously cancelled, and claims 8, 9, 17, and 26 are withdrawn from consideration in response to the 02/11/2026 restriction requirement.
Claims 1-7, 16 and 20-25 are hereby rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
2. Claims 21-23 recite “the resource adjustment fault” in the last limitation of each claim. Claim 20, from which claims 21-23 depend, discloses “a resource adjustment fault” and the first limitation of claims 21-23 also disclose “[a] resource adjustment fault”. Although it is understood that each of these recitations is intended to refer to the same detected resource adjustment fault, Applicant is urged to amend the recitation in the first limitations of these claims to “the resource adjustment fault”, in order to avoid ambiguity regarding which of the previously disclosed “resource adjustment fault” the recitations in the last limitations of the claims refer to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
3. Claims 1, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 2013/0243427).
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:
receiving a command indicating withdraw of resource adjustment sent by a 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
performing withdraw processing on resource adjustment of the first network element based on the command (after receiving the rollback indication message, each node on the ODUflex path judges whether the tributary slot adjustment of the data plane is successful previously, and if successful, executes a tributary slot adjustment rollback operation, and rolls back to a state before the tributary slot adjustment, that is, deletes an added tributary slot, or adds a cut tributary slot to a link connection, [0076], [0132]; A node that receives the PathTear message first judges whether LCR between the current node and an upstream node is successfully run previously; if successful, needs to run the LCR protocol again, and deletes a previously added tributary slot from a link connection, [0162]; a rollback unit 98, configured to: in a case that the judging unit judges that the tributary slot adjustment is successful, execute a tributary slot adjustment rollback operation, and roll back to a state before the tributary slot adjustment, [0198]).
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]).
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performing withdraw processing on resource adjustment of the first network element based on the command (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]) comprises:
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).
Apparatus claim 16 discloses limitations equivalent to those of method claim 1, 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.
Apparatus claim 25 discloses limitations equivalent to those of method claim 7, and is therefore rejected in view of the same rationale.
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.
4. Claims 2-5 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Sushima et al. (US 2004/0210646).
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein before the receiving a command indicating withdraw of resource adjustment sent by a management control unit, the method further comprises:
in the case of detecting that a resource adjustment fault has occurred in the communication path, an alarm is sent to the 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]).
However, Lin does not explicitly disclose the first network device 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 device, comprising:
in the 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 2, 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 2, 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 2, 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.
Apparatus claim 20 discloses limitations equivalent to those of method claim 2, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eng et al. US 8,135,857 – issuing a rollback command to cancel issued configuration data in response to a failed validation.
Purkayastha et al. US 8,335,171 – providing a reverse provisioning to network devices when it is determined that configuration success has not been achieved.
McEvoy et al. US 10,027,544 - configuration information may include a rollback command for removing the modification to the networking device if a problem is detected in the change of the networking device due to the performed modification.
A et al. US 10,374,886 – trigger a rollback of configuration changes on a network device in response to a configuration change failure.
Padhy et al. US 12,184,493 – a network device performing a rollback of a configuration updated to restore an original configuration based on the configuration update failing.
Thole US 2005/0262182 – transmitting an abort request in order to rollback any updates to resource managers in the case that an update process fails.
Tamura et al. US 2007/0189152 – configuring route and bandwidth settings and cancelling unsuccessful changes made to network devices.
Nakagawa et al. US 2009/0031320 – when resource allocation is timed out a prescribed number of retry times, notifying an administrator and receiving a command to restore to a state prior to a requested attribute setting.
Maggiari US 2013/0128725 – a management device receiving an alarm indicating a failure from adjacent network nodes.
Ahuja et al. US 2014/0199067 – dynamic provisioning of bandwidth along a transport path.
Hasan et al. US 2015/0106339 – a rollback system for undoing changes made to managed devices of a communication network.
Dani et al. US 2016/0026452 – deploying an update to application servers and issuing a rollback command in response to an error notification.
Drake et al. US 2019/0028392 – in response to a configuration message, a first network node limiting data transfer to a second node to no more than a downstream data transfer capacity.
Al Sayeed et al. US 2019/0356407 – triggering downstream restoration in response to a detected fault on a network node.
Haque et al. US 2022/0083436 – rollback configuration when a parameter of a second configuration is not satisfied.
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