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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this Office Action. No claims have been allowed.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments are persuasive only to the limited extent expressly indicated below; in all other respects, the arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that amended claim 7 is now adequately shown in FIG. 1 because ROADMs 191 and 195 include add/drop ports 194 and 198, and because paragraph 0037 describes collection from a wavelength selective switch port. See Applicant Remarks (07/10/2026), p. 7. The argument is not persuasive. Amended claim 7 does not merely require a generic port of a ROADM; it specifically requires that optical peak power per channel be collected from a wavelength selective switch port. FIG. 1 identifies elements 194 and 198 only as add/drop ports and does not identify a wavelength selective switch, a port of a wavelength selective switch, or an optical monitor coupled to such a port.
Textual support in paragraph 0037 may provide written-description support for the amendment, but it does not cause the claimed WSS-port feature to appear in the drawings. The claim-7 drawing objection is therefore maintained. Because claim 7 makes the WSS port the specific source of the measured peak-power data, the internal measurement location is a claimed structural relationship essential to understanding the scope of claim 7, not merely an unclaimed conventional background detail.
Applicant argues that the detailed timing relationship of claim 10 need not be separately illustrated because FIG. 2 already shows collection of optical parameters and a next collection interval. See Applicant Remarks (07/10/2026), pp. 7-8. Upon reconsideration, this argument is persuasive. The limitation that different optical parameters are collected with different frequencies is a timing/control feature whose separate graphical depiction is not essential to a proper understanding of the invention in view of FIG. 2 and the written description. Accordingly, the drawing objection is withdrawn as to claim 10.
Applicant argues that the amendments cure the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). See Applicant Remarks (07/10/2026), p. 8. The amendment to claim 8 replaces the defective phrase “of the each channel” with “of the channel,” and the amendment to claim 11 deletes pre-FEC BER as an alternative falling within “power value.” The Office agrees that the prior §112(b) rejections of claims 1, 8, 19, and 20 are overcome
and those rejections are withdrawn. Amended claim 11, however, remains indefinite for a different reason necessitated by the amendment: the claim does not clearly identify which of the first and second ROADMs is the transmitting ROADM, and the phrase “the receiving reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer” lacks a clear antecedent where two ROADMs were previously recited. The rejection of claim 11 is therefore maintained on the revised basis set forth below.
Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 19, and 20 require collection by a “single external server” or “single processing system” from different-vendor ROADMs and that the cited combination fails to teach that arrangement. See Applicant Remarks (07/10/2026), pp. 9-12. The argument is not persuasive. Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite a processing system including at least one processor; they do not recite a single physical server, one monolithic computer, or an external server having the additional structural and ownership limitations discussed in the specification. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from preferred embodiments are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111; In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Office does not dispute that the same claimed processing system performs the recited operations. Birk expressly teaches a processing system that collects optical data from a multi-vendor ROADM network and may be implemented as, or include, a PCE/SDN controller. Thus, the claimed processing-system requirement is addressed without importing the unclaimed “single external server” limitation.
Applicant characterizes Birk as merely describing different-vendor ROADMs that remain conventionally optimized in isolation. See Applicant Remarks (07/10/2026), pp. 9-10. That characterization is inconsistent with Birk’s express disclosure. Birk teaches Open ROADMs with standardized interfaces, a network-level SDN controller and PCE that manage multiple ROADMs, and a processing system that collects training data from a ROADM network that may be a multi-vendor network including ROADMs supplied by at least two vendors. Birk further explains that its machine-learning model need not access vendors’ proprietary information and can work with ROADMs from multiple vendors. [Birk, col. 3-6, 9-12]. Birk therefore teaches centralized, vendor-neutral network processing rather than isolated vendor-by-vendor optimization.
Applicant argues that no motivation exists to combine Birk with Mansouri Rad and that the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. See Applicant Remarks (07/10/2026), p. 10. The argument is not persuasive. There is no requirement that an express written motivation to combine appear in the references themselves. See MPEP §2145; Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Birk and Mansouri Rad address complementary aspects of the same optical-network problem. Birk teaches centralized collection and evaluation of optical data in a multi-vendor Open ROADM network. Mansouri Rad teaches controller-driven acquisition and comparison of characteristic values at components along a domain section containing a first ROADM and a second ROADM connected by an optical link. A person of ordinary skill would have
combined Mansouri Rad’s linked-section measurement technique with Birk’s multi-vendor controller to obtain accurate endpoint and section-specific measurements for vendor-neutral network evaluation and control. The expected result improved observability and coordinated control of a multi-vendor optical link would have been predictable, and each reference would continue to perform its known function.
Moreover, Mansouri Rad expressly teaches the temporal comparison disputed by Applicant: “In general, optical link viability and health, especially after repair and fault recovery, may be performed by comparing the new readings with the previous readings and making sure that the section is in pre-fault conditions.” [Mansouri Rad, col. 9, ll. 1-5]. This direct disclosure independently supports comparing newly collected optical-link readings with previously collected readings and confirms that the rejection is grounded in the applied art rather than reconstructed from Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant argues that Mansouri Rad appears to use ROADMs from one vendor whereas Birk describes different-vendor ROADMs. See Applicant Remarks (07/10/2026), p. 10. The argument does not address the rejection as actually made. Mansouri Rad is relied upon for controller-driven measurement and comparison along a section between linked ROADMs; Birk is relied upon for the multi-vendor/Open-ROADM environment. A reference need not individually disclose every limitation when the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. See MPEP §§2142-2143. Nothing in Mansouri Rad’s measurement technique is technologically incompatible with Birk’s standardized
Open ROADM interfaces, and the use of standardized interfaces would have facilitated, rather than discouraged, applying the measurement technique across different-vendor devices.
Applicant argues that because the independent claims are allegedly patentable, all dependent claims are likewise patentable. See Applicant Remarks (07/10/2026), pp. 12-15. The premise is not persuasive for the reasons above. Moreover, the dependent limitations are separately addressed by the applied art. The amendments to claims 7 and 8 do not introduce patentable distinctions, and claim 11 remains both indefinite and obvious under the interpretation explained below. Claims 10, 16, and 17 were not amended, and the response identifies no technical incompatibility or unexpected result associated with the additional references applied to those claims.
With respect to amended claim 7, Wagener expressly teaches monitoring an optical wavelength component routed through a WSS by using a selected WSS input/output port and directing a rejected portion to an optical monitor associated with another WSS output port. [Wagener, Abstract; col. 1-2]. Thus, the amendment from “wavelength selective switch” to “wavelength selective switch port” does not overcome the rejection. Sone further teaches wavelength-resolved optical-power measurement. The combined references therefore continue to teach the amended limitation.
With respect to amended claim 8, the amendment corrects grammar but does not change the technical substance of the limitation. Dal Farra teaches comparing actual per-channel transmit power with a per-channel optical power target, and Sone teaches determining per-channel optical power from the measured optical peak. Expressing drift as measured peak power minus target power is the direct mathematical representation of that comparison and remains obvious for the reasons set forth below.
With respect to amended claim 11, deletion of the pre-FEC-BER alternative does not overcome the prior-art rejection. Dal Farra teaches target-versus-actual per-channel power comparison, which renders transmit-side drift obvious. Li and Mansouri Rad teach collection of optical power and input/output characteristic values at components along an optical section, which renders received optical power at the receiving ROADM obvious. The claim-11 rejection is therefore maintained on the remaining alternatives, without reliance on the deleted BER language.
Applicant’s separate arguments regarding claims 7-8, 10, 16, and 17 merely repeat the asserted deficiency of independent claim 1 and state that the additional references do not cure it. See Applicant Remarks (07/10/2026), pp. 13-15. Because the alleged deficiency is not present, those derivative arguments are not persuasive. Wagener and Sone teach the WSS-port/optical-peak, drift, and collection-cadence features; Leung
teaches metro and long-haul/regional optical-network deployments; and Boden teaches a CWDM optical add/drop network. No declaration, technical evidence, teaching away, or unexpected result has been submitted that would rebut the articulated reasons to combine.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejections except that the drawing objection to claim 10 and the prior §112(b) rejections of claims 1, 8, 19, and 20 are withdrawn as stated above.
Drawings
The drawing objection is maintained as to claim 7 and withdrawn as to claim 10.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Amended claim 7 recites that “the optical peak power per channel is collected from a wavelength selective switch port” of at least one of the first reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer or the second reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer. Figures 1-3 show ROADMs 191 and 195, add/drop ports 194 and 198, transponders 192 and 196, the method flow, and the high-level processor/memory arrangement. However, no figure identifies a wavelength selective switch, a wavelength selective switch port, or an optical power monitor that collects optical peak power from such a port. Generic add/drop ports 194 and 198 do not establish that the depicted ports are WSS ports. This feature must be shown or canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. The specific internal measurement location is material because amended claim 7 does not merely require a conventional ROADM or a generic add/drop port; it limits the source of the collected optical
peak-power data to a port of the WSS. Accordingly, a drawing that depicts only unlabeled generic add/drop ports does not show the claimed structural relationship.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior §112(b) rejections are withdrawn for claims 1, 8, 19, and 20. However, amended claim 11 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 recites that “the power value is at least one of: a drift of a transmitting reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer of the first reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer and the second reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer, or an optical power received by the receiving reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer.”
The amendment removes the prior BER-related inconsistency, but the amended language remains indefinite. First, the phrase “a transmitting reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer of the first reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer and the
second reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer” does not clearly identify whether the transmitting ROADM is the first ROADM, the second ROADM, both ROADMs, or one selected from the two. The phrase “of the first ... and the second” does not recite the intended “one of” relationship and leaves the identity of the transmitting device uncertain.
Second, the phrase “the receiving reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer” lacks a clear antecedent basis. Claim 1 previously recites a first ROADM and a second ROADM, but neither is introduced as “a receiving reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer.” Because two possible ROADMs were previously recited, a person of ordinary skill cannot determine which one is referenced by “the receiving” ROADM or whether the receiving ROADM must be different from the transmitting ROADM. MPEP §2173.05(e) explains that a claim is indefinite where two elements are recited and a later reference does not make clear which element is intended.
Although the specification may describe an embodiment in which one ROADM transmits and the other receives, claim 11 does not clearly incorporate that relationship. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are not reasonably certain, and claim 11 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for the 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.
As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, and as set forth in MPEP 2141 (R-01.2024), II, the factual inquiries of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
Considering objective evidence indicative of obviousness or non-obviousness, if present.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter disclosed in the prior art was created by another (i.e., not by the inventive entity) unless proven otherwise. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim, and any
evidence of common ownership/assignment as of the effective filing date, so that the examiner may properly consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the claimed invention(s).
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya et al. (US20120063771A1) in view of Dal Farra (US10903931B1), further in view of Birk et al. (US11038616B2), further in view of Li et al. (CN104184518A), and further in view of Mansouri Rad et al. (US10784979B2).
Claim 1
Sugaya expressly teaches the core per-section equalization concept of controlling a section between adjacent optical nodes and adjusting the channel-by-channel power transmitted from the node at the transmission end of that section.
Sugaya teaches “According to an aspect of the disclosed embodiments, a WDM optical transmission system includes a plurality of optical nodes optically coupled by a transmission line, and a processor that is operative to set a section coupling two adjacent optical nodes among the plurality of optical nodes as a unit section for control ... and to adjust a power level corresponding to each channel of the WDM light transmitted on the transmission line from the optical node positioned at a transmission end of the unit section in accordance with a calculation result of the calculation.” [Sugaya, ¶ [0011]].
Further, Sugaya teaches “In FIG. 3, the WDM optical transmission system according to the present embodiment includes, for example, a plurality of optical-amplification repeating nodes 4 and a plurality of OADM nodes 5 on an optical transmission line 3 connecting a transmission terminal station 1 and a receiving terminal station 2 ... the optical nodes include the transmission terminal station and the receiving terminal station.” [Sugaya, ¶ [0024]].
Additionally, Dal Farra expressly teaches a ROADM environment with an optical controller, a SDN computing module, per-channel optical power targets, identification of the actual transmit power of each in-service channel, and channel-by-channel transmit power adjustment.
Dal Farra teaches “An optical system including a ROADM including previously in-service channels; a SDN computing module in communication with the ROADM over a DCN ... obtain optical power targets for each in-service channel ... equalize a transmit power for each in-service channel of the ROADM, including: identify the transmit power of each in-service channel ... adjust the transmit power of each in-service channel based on ... the optical power target ... and the identified transmit power.” [Dal Farra, Abstract].
Within analogous art, Birk expressly teaches that such ROADMs may be Open ROADMs with open standards allowing interoperability of different ROADMs manufactured by different vendors, thereby supplying the presently claimed multi-vendor limitation.
Birk teaches “These ROADMs may include Open ROADMs with open standards allowing interoperability of different ROADMs manufactured by different vendors.” [Birk, col. 5-6].
Birk additionally teaches “At step 304, the processing system may collect training data from a ROADM network. The ROADM network may be ... a multi-vendor network (e.g., including
ROADMs supplied by at least two vendors, such as an Open ROADM network).” [Birk, col. 9-10].
Birk further teaches “The training data may comprise optical data collected over a fixed period of time (e.g., one day, two days, etc.) ... In one example, the optical data includes ... bit error rate (BER) measurements (e.g., locations, ports, types, and bit error rates before forward error correction (preFEC BER)).” [Birk, col. 9-10].
Also, Li expressly teaches collecting wavelength optical channel error code rate, including pre-FEC BER, and wavelength optical channel optical power on optical channel paths.
Li teaches “The monitoring device comprises: a wavelength optical channel error code rate collecting unit for collecting the n wavelength on the optical channel path error code rate ... wavelength optical channel optical power collecting unit for collecting the wavelength optical channel optical power on the n wavelength optical channel path ... More specifically, the wavelength light channel error code rate collecting unit 201 collect[s] ... error code rate (Pre-FEC BER) and error code rate (Post-FEC BER).” [Li, Abstract, ¶¶ [0071] - [0072]].
However, within analogous art, Mansouri Rad further teaches the controller-driven acquisition of characteristic values received at and sent by components along an optical link between a first ROADM and a second ROADM, and comparison of those values by the controller.
Mansouri Rad teaches “The method comprises instructing a light source to send an optical signal across an optical link, obtaining measurements of characteristic values of the optical signal received at and sent by components along the domain network section, comparing the characteristic values to pre-defined limits, and determining the condition of the domain
network section ... The domain network section 300 comprises a first ROADM 400a optically coupled to a second ROADM 400b via an optical link 120.” [Mansouri Rad, Abstract, col. 3-4].
Mansouri Rad further expressly teaches “In general, optical link viability and health, especially after repair and fault recovery, may be performed by comparing the new readings with the previous readings and making sure that the section is in pre-fault conditions.” [Mansouri Rad, col. 9, ll. 1-5].
Accordingly, Mansouri Rad directly teaches obtaining new optical-link readings and comparing those readings with previous readings. Birk further teaches optical data collected over a fixed period of time, and Li teaches ongoing collection and monitoring of optical-power and error-rate information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have recognized that repeated monitoring naturally produces historical values that can be retained in the controller or network-management store and compared with current ROADM optical-parameter values to detect change, drift, degradation, or abrupt events. This use of prior readings as a baseline would have provided the predictable benefit of distinguishing a present deviation from the previously observed operating condition without changing the basic operating principles of Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li, or Mansouri Rad.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sugaya with Dal Farra because both references are directed to channel-by-channel optical power equalization in WDM/ROADM environments, and both aim to improve received optical performance and network reach by adjusting transmitted optical channel powers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine Birk because Birk expressly addresses Open
ROADM multi-vendor environments and teaches the very type of optical performance data, including preFEC BER and periodically collected optical data, that would be valuable in a multi-vendor implementation of Sugaya/Dal Farra style equalization. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine Li because Li expressly teaches whole-network monitoring of channel optical power and error code rate, including threshold-based monitoring of pre-FEC BER and wavelength optical channel optical power.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine Mansouri Rad because Mansouri Rad teaches a controller-based technique for causing optical measurements to be made along an optical link between a first ROADM and a second ROADM and comparing those values to evaluate the section. The resulting combination is no more than the predictable use of known ROADM section control, known per-channel power equalization, known multi-vendor Open ROADM operation, known BER/optical power monitoring, and known controller-based acquisition/comparison of optical section values to obtain the claimed method.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combined teachings solve closely related aspects of the same operational problem from complementary vantage points. Sugaya provides section-based channel equalization between adjacent optical nodes, which is directly relevant to the claimed first-ROADM/second-ROADM optical-link arrangement. Dal Farra provides the practical ROADM implementation details for obtaining channel power targets, identifying the actual in-service channel powers, and issuing channel-by-channel power adjustments through a controller in communication with the ROADM. Birk then extends that same control framework into a multi-vendor Open ROADM setting, where centralized collection
and evaluation of optical data are especially valuable because different vendors' ROADMs must still be coordinated across one optical path. Li contributes the specific use of channel optical power and pre-FEC BER as monitored optical-quality metrics, while Mansouri Rad supplies controller-driven section measurements taken at and sent by components along an optical link between two ROADMs. Combining these references would therefore have been a predictable engineering choice to improve optical-section observability, unify multi-vendor telemetry, and enable a more responsive equalization loop that accounts for both power-related behavior and BER-related service quality. [Sugaya, ¶¶ [0011], [0024]; Dal Farra, Abstract; Birk, col. 3-6, 9-12; Li, ¶¶ [0024] - [0029], [0071]-[0084]; Mansouri Rad, Abstract, col. 3-4].
Therefore, claim 1 would have been obvious.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 2 further requires that the processing system is part of a computing device that is separate from the first ROADM and the second ROADM.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra expressly teaches a SDN computing module 214 in communication with the ROADM over the DCN.
Dal Farra teaches “The optical controller 212 can be in communication with the SDN computing module 214, and/or the DCN 216.” [Dal Farra, col. 7-8].
Further, Birk expressly teaches a SDN controller 155 configured to perform operations relating to ROADMs while being separate from the ROADMs themselves in an Open ROADM environment.
Birk teaches “In one example, the network 105 also includes a software defined network (SDN) controller 155 ... configured to provide one or more operations or functions for selecting paths in ROADM networks using machine learning.” [Birk, col. 5-8].
Additionally, Birk teaches “The present disclosure relates to a ROADM-based network according to an open standard, such as the Open ROADM Multi-Source Agreement ... open standard ROADMs and optical plug-ins allow multi-vendor interoperability where various equipment support standardized application programming interfaces (APIs).” [Birk, col. 3-5].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement the claimed processing system as a separate computing device because externalized SDN and network-management control centralizes coordination, reduces per-node control complexity, and permits multi-vendor orchestration across interoperable ROADMs.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have further appreciated that implementing the processing system in a device separate from the ROADMs yields practical operational advantages in the exact type of network claimed here. In a multi-vendor ROADM environment, placing the processing intelligence outside the individual ROADMs simplifies interoperability, because the same external controller can normalize telemetry, apply one control policy across different vendors' equipment, and reduce the need for custom per-node embedded logic. A separate controller also improves maintainability and scalability because software updates,
policy changes, and network-wide threshold tuning can be performed centrally rather than node-by-node. For that reason, the claimed separation of the computing device from the first and second ROADMs would have represented a routine and predictable implementation choice, not a departure from the cited art. [Dal Farra, col. 7-8; Birk, col. 3-8].
Therefore, claim 2 would have been obvious.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 2 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 3 further requires that the computing device is a software defined networking controller.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra expressly teaches a SDN computing module that communicates with the ROADM over a DCN.
Dal Farra teaches “The optical controller 212 can be in communication with the SDN computing module 214, and/or the DCN 216.” [Dal Farra, col. 7-8].
Birk likewise teaches that the separate computing device may be a software defined network controller.
Birk teaches “In one example, the network 105 includes a software defined network (SDN) controller 155.” [Birk, col. 5-6].
It would have been obvious to employ a SDN controller as the separate computing device because SDN-based centralized control of ROADMs, transponders, WSSs, and related optical resources was known and provides scalable network-wide orchestration.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a software defined networking controller specifically, rather than some unspecified external computer, because SDN controllers were known to provide centralized orchestration of ROADMs, optical links, transponders, and related WDM resources across a network. Using a SDN controller would have allowed the claimed collection, comparison, and instruction operations to be integrated with network-wide provisioning, path validation, and multi-vendor policy enforcement. In other words, the substitution of a SDN controller for a generic external computing device is the predictable selection of a known control platform that was already designed for centralized optical-network management. [Dal Farra, col. 7-8; Birk, col. 5-8].
Therefore, claim 3 would have been obvious.
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 4 further requires that collecting comprises sending a prompt to the first ROADM and the second ROADM, where the prompt causes the first ROADM and the second ROADM to send the plurality of values to the processing system.
However, within analogous art, Mansouri Rad expressly teaches controller-driven instructions to send a monitoring optical signal across a domain network section and to instruct nodes/receivers to monitor the signal and provide measurements.
Mansouri Rad teaches “Instruct LS to send optical signal across domain network section ... For each component, obtain output characteristic values ... For each component, obtain input characteristic values.” [Mansouri Rad, FIG. 7A, FIG. 7B, col. 9-10].
Mansouri Rad teaches “Instruct LS having a known specification to send monitoring signal across domain network ... For each node in the network, instruct receivers to monitor the monitoring signal.” [Mansouri Rad, FIG. 10].
It would have been obvious to implement such controller-originated instructions as prompts causing the first ROADM and the second ROADM to send their values to the processing system because that is the predictable messaging mechanism by which SDN/network controllers solicit telemetry from ROADMs in order to evaluate and control the link.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that prompt-based telemetry collection is a natural control-plane mechanism in a ROADM network because the controller typically does not passively wait for all needed values to appear; rather, it requests or triggers measurement activity when evaluating a specific optical section. Using a prompt to cause the first and second ROADMs to send values to the processing system improves determinism, ensures the data correspond to the same measurement context, and reduces ambiguity about which optical path or event is being evaluated. The claimed prompt feature therefore reflects a predictable implementation of the controller-driven measurement collection already suggested by Mansouri Rad in the optical-link monitoring context. [Mansouri Rad, FIGS. 7A, 7B, 10, col. 9-10].
Therefore, claim 4 would have been obvious.
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 5 further requires that the plurality of values is collected from the first ROADM and the second ROADM simultaneously.
However, within analogous art, Birk teaches “The training data may comprise optical data collected over a fixed period of time (e.g., one day, two days, etc.).” [Birk, col. 9-10].
Additionally, Mansouri Rad teaches “For each node in the network, instruct receivers to monitor the monitoring signal.” [Mansouri Rad, FIG. 10].
The cited combination teaches repeated collection of optical data from multiple nodes and controller-driven monitoring of multiple components, but does not expressly state in haec verba that the plurality of values is collected 'simultaneously.' However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to collect the corresponding first-ROADM and second-ROADM values substantially simultaneously, or within the same telemetry interval, because simultaneous collection provides a more accurate common snapshot of link conditions, avoids skew caused by transient changes between separate collection events, and improves the quality of subsequent comparison and equalization decisions. In a multi-vendor ROADM environment, collecting both endpoint values contemporaneously would have been a straightforward and predictable implementation detail.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also have found simultaneous or substantially simultaneous collection particularly advantageous in the claimed environment because optical conditions can change quickly due to re-provisioning, traffic variation, gain changes, or
transient events. If the first ROADM were measured significantly earlier than the second ROADM, the resulting values could reflect different link states and produce less reliable comparisons. Collecting the corresponding values together, or within the same short telemetry window, would therefore have been a common-sense refinement that improves the accuracy of section-level diagnosis and subsequent equalization decisions while using the same known monitoring architecture. [Birk, col. 9-10; Mansouri Rad, FIG. 10].
The implementation would not have required any new optical component or change in the principle of operation. The controller would merely issue the measurement requests under a common timing reference and associate the returned endpoint values with the same collection epoch. That routine synchronization would have predictably reduced temporal skew, improved correlation of the two endpoint measurements, and increased the reliability of the subsequent comparison and power-adjustment decision. [Birk, col. 9-10; Mansouri Rad, FIG. 10].
Therefore, claim 5 would have been obvious.
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 6 further requires that the plurality of optical parameters includes at least one of an optical peak power per channel of the optical link, a drift per channel of the optical link, a bit error rate per transponder of the first ROADM, or a bit error rate per transponder of the second ROADM.
However, within analogous art, Birk expressly teaches preFEC BER in the Open ROADM multi-vendor context.
Birk teaches “The training data may comprise ... bit error rate (BER) measurements (e.g., locations, ports, types, and bit error rates before forward error correction (preFEC BER)).” [Birk, col. 9-10].
Further, Li expressly teaches collecting wavelength optical channel error code rate, including pre-FEC BER, and wavelength optical channel optical power.
Li teaches “The wavelength optical channel error code rate collecting unit 201 collect[s] ... error code rate (Pre-FEC BER) and error code rate (Post-FEC BER).” [Li, ¶¶ [0071] - [0072]].
Li teaches “The wavelength optical channel optical power collecting unit 205 ... collect[s] ... wavelength optical channel optical power.” [Li, ¶¶ [0082] - [0084]]
In view of Dal Farra’s teaching of per-channel optical power targets and identified transmit powers, the difference between actual per-channel power and target per-channel power is an obvious per-channel drift metric.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that these claimed optical parameters are not arbitrary, but are a technically sensible set of measurements for closed-loop optical control. Optical power or optical peak power provides a direct indication of channel signal strength, BER provides a direct indication of service quality at the receiver or transponder, and drift captures the deviation between an expected or target condition and an actual measured condition. Taken together, these metrics allow the controller to decide not merely whether a channel is present, but whether it is healthy, whether it is moving away from a target operating point, and whether corrective transmit-power action is warranted. Thus, selecting these particular parameters would have been an obvious combination of complementary optical-network metrics. [Dal Farra, Abstract, col. 10-12; Birk, col. 9-10; Li, ¶¶ [0071] - [0084].
Therefore, claim 6 would have been obvious.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 6 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 9 further requires that the bit error rate per transponder serves as a threshold maximum BER that should not be exceeded by an adjustment to adjust a transmit power.
However, within analogous art, Birk expressly teaches preFEC BER in the ROADM context.
Birk teaches “bit error rate (BER) measurements ... before forward error correction (preFEC BER).” [Birk, col. 9-10].
Additionally, Li expressly teaches threshold-based monitoring of error code rate,
Li teaches “when the error code rate exceeds a predetermined error code rate threshold value, the sending wavelength optical channel error code rate of the alarm information.”
[Li, ¶¶ [0024] - [0029], claim 6]
It would have been obvious to use the monitored BER, including preFEC BER, as a threshold or guardrail that should not be exceeded when transmit power is re-equalized, because BER is the direct optical-performance quality metric used to determine whether channel performance remains acceptable.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use BER as a threshold maximum during power adjustment because equalization that improves optical power alone is not useful if it degrades actual transmission quality at the transponder. In practice, BER serves as a direct operational safety check: it tells the controller whether further transmit-power movement is helping or instead pushing the channel toward an unacceptable error condition. Using BER as a guardrail during equalization is therefore a predictable and technically prudent refinement of the cited teachings, ensuring that power-control actions remain bounded by an objective service-quality criterion rather than being driven by power values alone. [Birk, col. 9-10; Li, ¶¶ [0024] - [0029], [0071] - [0072]. Therefore, claim 9 would have been obvious.
Claim 11
For purposes of prior-art analysis only, and without withdrawing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), claim 11 is interpreted as requiring that one of the first and second ROADMs is a transmitting ROADM and that the other is a receiving ROADM.
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 11 further requires that the power value is at least one of: a drift of a transmitting reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer of the first reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer and the second reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer, or an optical power received by the receiving reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra expressly teaches target-versus-actual per-channel power comparisons, which render obvious a drift of the transmitting ROADM.
Dal Farra teaches “The optical controller 212 can compare, for each in-service channel ... the optical power target 242 for the in-service channel with the transmit power for the in-service channel. Based on such comparison, the optical controller 212 can adjust the transmit power of the in-service channel to more closely match the optical power target 242.” [Dal Farra, col. 10-12].
Further, Li expressly teaches collecting wavelength optical channel optical power on an optical channel path.
Li teaches “The wavelength optical channel optical power collecting unit 205 ... collect[s] ... wavelength optical channel optical power.” [Li, ¶¶ [0082]-[0084]].
Additionally, Mansouri Rad teaches controller-driven acquisition of input and output characteristic values at components along a domain network section containing a first ROADM and a second ROADM connected by an optical link.
Mansouri Rad teaches “The method comprises instructing a light source to send an optical signal across an optical link, obtaining measurements of characteristic values of the optical signal received at and sent by components along the domain network section, comparing the characteristic values to pre-defined limits, and determining the condition of the domain network section ... The domain network section 300 comprises a first ROADM 400a optically coupled to a second ROADM 400b via an optical link 120.” [Mansouri Rad, Abstract, col. 3-4].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use transmit-side drift and receive-side optical power together because the two measurements provide complementary information about the same optical channel. The difference between target and actual transmit
power indicates whether the transmitting ROADM has departed from its intended operating point, while optical power measured at the receiving ROADM indicates the condition that remains after propagation through the link and intervening optical components. Correlating those values allows a controller to distinguish a transmit-side imbalance from a link-loss or receive-side condition and to select an appropriate power correction. This is a predictable application of Dal Farra’s target-based equalization together with Li’s optical-power collection and Mansouri Rad’s linked-section measurement framework. [Dal Farra, col. 10-12; Li, ¶¶ [0082]-[0084]; Mansouri Rad, Abstract, col. 3-4].
Accordingly, claim 11 would have been obvious.
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 12 further requires that identifying a third reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer on a path of at least one wavelength and sending an instruction to the third reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexer to adjust a transmit power.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra expressly teaches that a further optical controller of a further ROADM can similarly adjust the transmit powers of respective in-service channels based on respective power targets.
Dal Farra teaches “a further optical controller 212 of a further ROADM can similarly adjust the transmit powers of respective in-service channels based on respective power targets 242.” [Dal Farra, col. 13-14].
Additionally, Birk expressly teaches path features that include the number of pass-through ROADMs in the path of a wavelength.
Birk teaches “the feature set produced for each wavelength ... includes ... number of pass-through ROADMs; number of amplifiers in the path; length of path ...” [Birk, col. 11-12].
It would have been obvious, once a path includes more than two ROADMs, to identify the additional pass-through ROADM(s) on the wavelength path and to issue the same type of equalization instruction to such further ROADM(s) in order to extend the same power equalization strategy over the complete path.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that once a wavelength path traverses more than two ROADMs, section-local equalization at only the first two ROADMs may be insufficient to preserve performance over the full path. If a third pass-through ROADM introduces additional attenuation, gain behavior, or filtering effects, extending the same instruction-and-adjustment concept to that third ROADM is a predictable way to maintain end-to-end channel quality. The cited art already teaches path information identifying pass-through ROADMs and teaches that further ROADMs can similarly adjust transmit powers based on power targets. Applying the same equalization logic to a third ROADM on the wavelength path would therefore have been a routine scaling of the base technique to the actual path topology. [Dal Farra, col. 13-14; Birk, col. 11-12].
Therefore, claim 12 would have been obvious.
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 13 further requires that detecting a next collection interval and repeating the collecting, comparing, determining, and sending.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra expressly teaches a first equalization and a second equalization at a later time based on updated transmit powers.
Dal Farra teaches “after equalizing the transmit power for each in-service channel of the ROADM, at a first time, equalizing, by the optical controller and at a second time after the first time, the transmit power for each in-service channel, including: identifying an updated transmit power of each in-service channel; and adjusting, at the ROADM, the updated transmit power ...” [Dal Farra, claim 2, col. 18].
Additionally, Birk expressly teaches collection of optical data over a fixed period of time, i.e., periodic collection intervals.
Birk teaches “The training data may comprise optical data collected over a fixed period of time (e.g., one day, two days, etc.).” [Birk, col. 9-10].
It would have been obvious to repeat the collect/compare/determine/send control cycle at the next collection interval because periodic or repeated telemetry and re-equalization are the predictable control strategy for maintaining desired channel powers and acceptable BER as network conditions evolve.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to repeat the collection and equalization cycle because optical networks are dynamic systems rather than static one-time
calibrations. Channel powers can drift, BER can change as neighboring channels are turned up or down, and vendor equipment behavior can vary over time as the network state evolves. Repeating the collect/compare/determine/send sequence at the next collection interval is therefore the predictable way to maintain the desired operating point after the initial equalization and to prevent performance degradation from accumulating unnoticed. [Dal Farra, claim 2, col. 17-18; Birk, col. 9-10].
Therefore, claim 13 would have been obvious.
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 14 further requires that the processing system is separate from the first ROADM and the second ROADM.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra teaches the SDN computing module 214 communicating with the ROADM over a DCN.
Dal Farra teaches “The optical controller 212 can be in communication with the SDN computing module 214, and/or the DCN 216.” [Dal Farra, col. 7-8].
Further, Birk teaches a SDN controller separate from the ROADMs.
Birk teaches “In one example, the network 105 also includes a software defined network (SDN) controller 155 ... configured to provide one or more operations or functions for selecting paths in ROADM networks using machine learning.” [Birk, col. 5-6].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed claim 14 as another straightforward application of the same centralized-control architecture already described for claim 2. A processing system external to the ROADMs enables the same control logic to be reused across multiple optical sections, permits cross-vendor coordination, and supports centralized software updates and policy management. In a ROADM network that collects telemetry and issues transmit-power adjustments, externalizing the processing system is the predictable implementation choice because it reduces duplication of intelligence inside each ROADM and allows broader network awareness during decision-making. [Dal Farra, col. 7-8; Birk, col. 5-8.]
Therefore, claim 14 would have been obvious.
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 15 further requires that the optical network is a multi-vendor dense wavelength division multiplexing network.
However, within analogous art, Birk expressly teaches both DWDM networks and Open ROADMs with interoperability of different ROADMs manufactured by different vendors.
Birk teaches “Reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexers (ROADMs) are increasingly being used in dense-wavelength-division multiplexed (DWDM) networks ...” [Birk, col. 1-2].
Birk teaches “these ROADMs may include Open ROADMs with open standards allowing interoperability of different ROADMs manufactured by different vendors.” [Birk, col. 5-6].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to deploy the claimed monitoring and equalization approach specifically in a multi-vendor DWDM network because the operational need for centralized control becomes stronger, not weaker, as wavelength density and vendor diversity increase. Dense wavelength packing makes power balance, filtering effects, and quality degradation more important to monitor, while multi-vendor interoperability makes centralized collection and normalization of telemetry more desirable. Birk's Open ROADM teachings therefore provide not just a formal match to the claim language, but also a practical reason to combine those teachings with Sugaya and Dal Farra. [Birk, col. 1-6; Sugaya, ¶¶ [0011], [0024]; Dal Farra, Abstract.]
Therefore, claim 15 would have been obvious.
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 18 further requires that the processing system is operated by an operator of the optical network who is separate from the different vendors.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra expressly teaches centralized SDN/DCN-based control external to the ROADM itself, which is directly applicable to a multi-vendor interoperable optical network.
Dal Farra teaches “The optical controller 212 can be in communication with the SDN computing module 214, and/or the DCN 216.” [Dal Farra, col. 7-8].
Additionally, Birk expressly teaches that new wavelengths in a multi-vendor Open ROADM network are evaluated by the service provider.
Birk teaches “before provisioning a new wavelength, the new wavelength may first be evaluated by the service provider to verify that the new wavelength satisfies the service provider’s optical performance standards ... In one example, the present disclosure relates to a ROADM-based network according to an open standard, such as the Open ROADM Multi-Source Agreement.” [Birk, col. 3-4]
Birk further teaches Open ROADMs allowing interoperability of equipment from different vendors.
Birk teaches “these ROADMs may include Open ROADMs with open standards allowing interoperability of different ROADMs manufactured by different vendors.” [Birk, col. 5-6]
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the network operator or service provider, rather than each individual equipment vendor, to operate the centralized processing system that collects telemetry and coordinates equalization across vendor boundaries, because such centralized operator control is what enables cross-vendor path validation and network-wide power optimization.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that the claimed operator-separate-from-vendors feature fits naturally with the cited Open ROADM environment. In a network composed of interoperable ROADMs from different vendors, centralized monitoring and equalization are most practically performed by the network operator or service provider, because the operator has visibility across the whole path and can apply one policy across all
vendor devices. Leaving such processing under vendor-specific control would undermine the very interoperability and cross-network coordination that Open ROADM seeks to enable. Thus,
the claimed relationship between the processing system, the operator, and the different vendors would have been an obvious organizational and technical arrangement in the cited art. [Dal Farra, col. 7-8; Birk, col. 3-6].
Therefore, claim 18 would have been obvious.
Claim 19
Sugaya teaches “According to an aspect of the disclosed embodiments, a WDM optical transmission system includes a plurality of optical nodes optically coupled by a transmission line ... and to adjust a power level corresponding to each channel of the WDM light transmitted on the transmission line from the optical node positioned at a transmission end of the unit section ...” [Sugaya, ¶ [0011]].
Dal Farra further teaches “An optical system including a ROADM including previously in-service channels; a SDN computing module in communication with the ROADM over a DCN ... equalize a transmit power for each in-service channel of the ROADM ...” [Dal Farra, Abstract].
Additionally, Birk teaches “The training data may comprise optical data collected over a fixed period of time ... bit error rate (BER) measurements ... before forward error correction (preFEC BER).” [Birk, col. 9-10, claim 10].
Within analogous art, Li teaches “The monitoring device comprises ... wavelength optical channel optical power collecting unit ... wavelength light channel error code rate collecting unit ... error code rate (Pre-FEC BER) ...” [Li, ¶¶ [0070] – [0072]].
Further, Mansouri Rad teaches “The method comprises instructing a light source to send an optical signal across an optical link ... obtaining measurements of characteristic values ... comparing the characteristic values ... and determining the condition of the domain network section ...” [Mansouri Rad, Abstract].
Mansouri Rad further expressly teaches “In general, optical link viability and health, especially after repair and fault recovery, may be performed by comparing the new readings with the previous readings and making sure that the section is in pre-fault conditions.” [Mansouri Rad, col. 9, ll. 1-5].
Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li, and Mansouri Rad teach the recited operations of collecting optical-parameter values from first and second ROADMs connected by an optical link, comparing newly obtained readings with previous readings, detecting a change in a power-related channel condition, and causing transmit-power adjustment at a ROADM. BER information remains relevant as one of the collected optical parameters, but the detected “power value” change is supported by the applied optical-power teachings.
It would have been obvious to implement those same known control operations in software instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium for execution by a processing system because such control logic in ROADM/SDN environments was commonly implemented by processors, controllers, and software modules.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to embody the claim 1 control logic in non-transitory computer-readable medium form because the cited references already rely on processors, controllers, and software-managed optical control. Once the claim 1
operations themselves are obvious, recasting those same operations as stored executable instructions is the standard and predictable way such optical-network logic is implemented and deployed. The medium claim therefore does not introduce a new technical principle beyond the already-obvious controller-based collection, comparison, monitoring, and transmit-power adjustment workflow. [Sugaya, ¶ [0011]; Dal Farra, Abstract; Birk, col. 5-12; Li, ¶¶ [0070] - [0084]; Mansouri Rad, Abstract].
Therefore, claim 19 would have been obvious.
Claim 20
Sugaya teaches the section-level channel power adjustment between adjacent optical nodes.
Sugaya teaches “According to an aspect of the disclosed embodiments, a WDM optical transmission system includes a plurality of optical nodes optically coupled by a transmission line ... and to adjust a power level corresponding to each channel of the WDM light transmitted on the transmission line from the optical node positioned at a transmission end of the unit section ...” [Sugaya, ¶ [0011]].
Further, Dal Farra teaches a ROADM with an optical controller, OCM, optical power targets, and SDN computing module.
Dal Farra teaches “An optical system including a ROADM including previously in-service channels; a SDN computing module in communication with the ROADM over a DCN ... obtain
optical power targets ... equalize a transmit power for each in-service channel ...” [Dal Farra, Abstract].
Within analogous art, Birk teaches Open ROADMs with interoperability of different ROADMs manufactured by different vendors and preFEC BER data in the ROADM network;
Birk teaches “These ROADMs may include Open ROADMs with open standards allowing interoperability of different ROADMs manufactured by different vendors.” [Birk, col. 5-6].
Li teaches “The monitoring device comprises ... wavelength optical channel optical power collecting unit ... wavelength light channel error code rate collecting unit ...” [Li, ¶¶ [0070] – [0072]].
Additionally, Mansouri Rad teaches a controller-driven system in which a first ROADM and a second ROADM are connected by an optical link and measured values are obtained and compared for the domain network section.
Mansouri Rad teaches “The domain network section 300 comprises a first ROADM 400a optically coupled to a second ROADM 400b via an optical link 120.” [Mansouri Rad, col. 3-4].
Mansouri Rad further expressly teaches “In general, optical link viability and health, especially after repair and fault recovery, may be performed by comparing the new readings with the previous readings and making sure that the section is in pre-fault conditions.” [Mansouri Rad, col. 9, ll. 1-5].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate these teachings into the claimed system architecture because each reference contributes a compatible component of a unified ROADM control system. Sugaya supplies section-based channel-power adjustment
between adjacent optical nodes; Dal Farra supplies the concrete ROADM-side controller, OCM, power-target, and in-service channel equalization mechanics; Birk supplies the multi-vendor Open ROADM setting and the use of BER-rich optical data; Li supplies whole-network collection of optical power and error-rate information, including pre-FEC BER; and Mansouri Rad supplies controller-based acquisition and comparison of values along an optical link between first and second ROADMs. Bringing those teachings together would have predictably yielded a system in which first and second ROADMs on an optical link are measured and compared by a processing system and are then instructed for transmit-power adjustment on the basis of detected channel-condition changes. [Sugaya, ¶¶ [0011], [0024]; Dal Farra, Abstract; Birk, col. 3-6, 9-12; Li, ¶¶ [0070] - [0084]; Mansouri Rad, Abstract, col. 3-4].
Mansouri Rad’s direct comparison of new readings with previous readings supplies the temporal comparison performed by the claimed processor, while Birk’s multi-vendor processing system supplies the centralized network-level platform. Implementing those known operations as instructions stored in memory and executed by the recited processor would have been the conventional system realization of the same controller-based workflow and would not have changed the function of any applied component.
The combination therefore renders obvious the claimed system of claim 20.
Claims 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya et al. in view of Dal Farra, further in view of Birk et al., further in view of Li, further in view of Mansouri Rad et al., further in view of Wagener et al. (US9680570B2), and further in view of Sone et al. (US8965202B2).
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 6 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein amended claim 7 further requires that the optical peak power per channel is collected from a wavelength selective switch port of at least one of the first ROADM or the second ROADM.
However, within analogous art, Wagener expressly teaches monitoring an optical wavelength component of a WDM optical signal routed through a WSS by using selected WSS input and output ports, and further teaches that ROADMs use optical channel monitoring to provide channel-power information for equalization.
Wagener teaches “A method of monitoring at least one optical wavelength component of a WDM optical signal being routed through a wavelength selective switch (WSS) includes directing an optical wavelength component from a given input port of the WSS to a selected output port with a selected amount of attenuation. A rejected portion of the optical wavelength component giving rise to the selected amount of attenuation is directed to an optical monitor associated with another output port of the WSS. A power level of the optical wavelength component is determined by pre-calibrating a proportionality between the
power level of the wavelength component and the power level of the rejected portion that is directed to the optical monitor.” [Wagener, Abstract].
Wagener further teaches “For example, reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexers (ROADMs) ... require an optical channel monitor ... and to provide channel power information to variable optical attenuator (VOA) control electronics so that the power of added channels can be equalized with the pass-through channels.” [Wagener, col. 1-2].
Additionally, Sone expressly teaches an optical power monitor that detects optical power of respective wavelengths in a wavelength-multiplexing system.
Sone teaches “An optical power monitor that detects optical power of respective wavelengths of a signal light in a wavelength multiplexing system, includes: a light emitter configured to superimpose a frequency modulation component on a signal light; a wavelength tunable filter configured to sweep a pass band of the signal light across a wavelength band for a signal light; and a detector configured to detect intensity changes in optical power passing through the wavelength tunable filter with a frequency modulation of the optical power, and to detect an optical power measurement value at a middle point of two points of the intensity changes of the optical power as the optical power of a wavelength to be measured.” [Sone, Abstract].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Wagener and Sone with the base ROADM equalization references because the claimed collection from a WSS port is a specific implementation of the already-recognized need to obtain wavelength-resolved channel-power data within a ROADM. Wagener expressly locates the monitoring operation at
selected WSS input/output ports and uses the rejected optical portion directed from a WSS port to an optical monitor. Sone provides a known technique for determining the optical power associated with each wavelength. Combining those teachings would have predictably produced a WSS-port measurement arrangement that supplies per-channel peak-power information to the controller used for power equalization, while each component performs its known function. [Wagener, Abstract, col. 1-2; Sone, Abstract].
Therefore, claim 7 would have been obvious.
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 6 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 8 further requires that the drift per channel is calculated, for each channel, as optical peak power per channel minus a target optical power of the channel.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra expressly teaches comparing the per-channel optical power target with the identified transmit power of the in-service channel and adjusting based on that comparison.
Dal Farra teaches “The optical controller 212 can compare, for each in-service channel ... the optical power target 242 for the in-service channel with the transmit power for the in-service channel. Based on such comparison, the optical controller 212 can adjust the transmit power of the in-service channel to more closely match the optical power target 242.” [Dal Farra, col. 10-12].
Additionally, Sone teaches determination of the optical power of each channel from the measured optical peak.
Sone teaches “The detected optical power at a center wavelength of a peak in the optical power is taken as the optical power of each channel.” [Sone, col. 1-4].
Once Dal Farra’s target per-channel optical power and Sone’s measured per-channel optical power are available, expressing the channel drift as the measured optical peak power minus the target optical power is no more than the straightforward mathematical representation of the already-taught comparison.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that once a target optical power exists and once measured channel optical peak power can be obtained, representing the channel drift as measured power minus target power is the most direct and technically meaningful formulation of the deviation. That expression provides the sign and magnitude of the correction needed, directly aligns with Dal Farra's comparison-and-adjustment framework, and converts measured optical peak data into a control variable suitable for a controller. Thus, the claimed drift calculation is not a separate inventive concept but a predictable mathematical implementation of the already-taught comparison between actual and target channel power. [Dal Farra, col. 10-12; Sone, col. 1-4].
Therefore, claim 8 would have been obvious.
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 6 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 10 further requires that at least two of the plurality of optical parameters are collected with different frequencies.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra teaches re-equalization at a first time and then again at a second time after the first time.
Dal Farra teaches “after equalizing ... at a first time, equalizing ... at a second time after the first time, the transmit power for each in-service channel, including: identifying an updated transmit power of each in-service channel.” [Dal Farra, col. 2, col. 17-18].
Further, Birk teaches optical data collected over a fixed period of time.
Birk teaches “The training data may comprise optical data collected over a fixed period of time (e.g., one day, two days, etc.).” [Birk, col. 9-10].
Additionally, Sone teaches fixed-interval optical power measurement by sweeping and detecting optical power values.
Sone teaches “Sweep wavelength tunable filter, and detect optical power and frequency modulation component ... obtain amplitude values ... detected at fixed interval.” [Sone, FIG. 7, FIG. 8].
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to collect different optical parameters at different frequencies because optical power, BER, and other optical telemetry have different update dynamics, computational burdens, and operational uses. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that rapid optical power monitoring can be performed at relatively
frequent intervals, while BER-based or historical-performance sampling can be performed at a different, often longer, cadence, in order to reduce overhead while preserving adequate control fidelity.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to collect at least two optical parameters at different frequencies because different telemetry types impose different practical tradeoffs between responsiveness and overhead. Optical power can be sampled frequently to support fast control response, whereas BER or historical-performance values often benefit from being gathered over longer windows to reduce noise and avoid overreacting to momentary fluctuations. Using different cadences therefore allows the controller to combine fast-changing measurements with more stable quality indicators in a resource-efficient manner while improving the reliability of the resulting equalization decisions. [Dal Farra, col. 17-18; Birk, col. 9-10; Sone, FIGS. 7-8].
Selecting unequal collection frequencies would have required only a known scheduling choice in the controller, not a modification of the underlying sensors or optical path. A faster cadence for optical-power data would support prompt closed-loop correction, while a slower or longer-window cadence for BER-related data would provide a statistically more stable quality indication and avoid unnecessary processing or control-plane traffic. The predictable result would have been a more responsive and resource-efficient monitoring system that preserves measurement reliability. [Dal Farra, col. 17-18; Birk, col. 9-10; Sone, FIGS. 7-8].
Therefore, claim 10 would have been obvious.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya et al. in view of Dal Farra, further in view of Birk et al., further in view of Li, further in view of Mansouri Rad et al., further in view of Leung (US8873956B2).
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 16 further requires that the multi-vendor DWDM network is at least one of an ultra long-haul DWDM network, a long-haul DWDM network, a regional DWDM network, or a metro DWDM network.
However, within analogous art, Dal Farra likewise teaches that the optical network may be used in a short-haul metropolitan network or a long-haul inter-city network.
Dal Farra teaches “Optical network 101 may be used in a short-haul metropolitan network, a long haul inter-city network, or any other suitable network or combination of networks.” [Dal Farra, col. 5-6].
Additionally, Leung expressly teaches that the optical network may be a metro optical network or a long haul/regional optical network.
Leung teaches “The optical network 400 may be a metro optical network or a long haul/regional optical network.” [Leung, FIG. 4, col. 5-6].
Because claim 16 is written in the disjunctive (“at least one of”), the cited teachings satisfy the claimed deployment classes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to deploy the claimed ROADM monitoring and power-equalization techniques in any such DWDM deployment class because the same channel-power, loss, and BER control concerns arise across metro, regional, and long-haul optical transport implementations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the claimed techniques across metro, regional, long-haul, and ultra-long-haul DWDM deployments because the same optical-control concerns recur across all of those transport classes, even if the path lengths differ. As distance increases, the need for telemetry, power balancing, and quality monitoring becomes even more pronounced, but the underlying control logic remains the same. The cited art therefore supports using the same ROADM monitoring and transmit-power equalization framework in any of the claimed DWDM deployment environments. [Dal Farra, col. 5-6; Leung, col. 5-6].
Therefore, claim 16 would have been obvious.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya et al. in view of Dal Farra, further in view of Birk et al., further in view of Li, further in view of Mansouri Rad et al., further in view of Boden (US7856182B2).
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sugaya, Dal Farra, Birk, Li and Mansouri Rad, except wherein claim 17 further requires that the optical network is a multi-vendor coarse wavelength division multiplexing network.
However, within analogous art, Boden expressly teaches a coarse WDM optical add/drop network structure.
Boden teaches “A coarse WDM optical add/drop network structure optimised for logical TDM ring topologys is suggested.” [Boden, col. 2, ll. 34-38; see also FIGS. 1-5].
The cited base combination teaches WDM/ROADM optical transport generally. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the same ROADM optical monitoring and transmit-power equalization techniques taught by the base combination to a CWDM implementation, because CWDM is a known and predictable variant of WDM optical networking that uses the same general principles of multiplexed wavelength transport, add/drop node functionality, and network management, while differing primarily in channel spacing and deployment economics.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the same monitoring and equalization concepts to a CWDM network because CWDM is a known variant of multiplexed optical transport that still uses wavelength-separated channels, add/drop node behavior, and network management, even though the channel spacing differs from DWDM. If a controller-based system benefits from measuring optical power, monitoring BER-related behavior, and issuing power-adjustment instructions in a DWDM ROADM setting, the same type of controller-based reasoning would predictably improve performance and manageability in a CWDM implementation as well. Thus, adapting the base combination to the CWDM environment taught by Boden would have been an obvious deployment variation rather than a change in operating principle. [Boden, col. 2, ll. 34-38; see also FIGS. 1-5].
Therefore, claim 17 would have been obvious.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Mohammed Abdelraheem, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday.
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, David Payne, can be reached at (571) 272-3024. 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.
/MOHAMMED ABDELRAHEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
/DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights