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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites in lines 1-2 “further comprising comprises obtaining”. It should read “further comprising obtaining”. 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.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zou (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2008/0095535 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zou teaches in FIG. 1 a service signal processing method implemented by an optical line terminal (OLT) and comprising: receiving a second frame from an optical network unit (ONU) (Zou teaches in paragraph [0012] that the OLT receives a GEM frame—second frame— which comprises a service signal in the MAC frame format—first frame), wherein the second frame comprises a first frame, and wherein the first frame comprises a service signal; and sending a first optical transport unit (OTU) frame to a device in an optical transport network (OTN), wherein the first OTU frame carries the first frame (Zou teaches in paragraphs [0008]-[0010] that the OLT can use one of three manners to form an OTU frame where the OTU frame contains the service signal in the MAC frame format).
Regarding claim 8, Zou teaches in paragraph [0008] that the client signal is mapped into the payload of a OPUk which is part of an OTN frame.
Regarding claim 17, Zou teaches in FIG. 1 an optical line terminal (OLT), comprising: a first interface (the interface on the left-hand side of the OLT 2) configured to receive a second frame from an optical network unit (ONU) (Zou teaches in paragraph [0012] that the OLT receives a GEM frame—second frame— which comprises a service signal in the MAC frame format—first frame), wherein the second frame comprises a first frame, and wherein the first frame comprises a service signal; and a second interface (the interface on the right-hand side of the OLT 2) configured to send a first optical transport unit (OTU) frame to a device in an optical transport network (OTN), wherein the first OTU frame carries the first frame (Zou teaches in paragraphs [0008]-[0010] that the OLT can use one of three manners to form an OTU frame where the OTU frame contains the service signal in the MAC frame format).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to 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 later invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2008/0095535 A1) in view of Luo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2014/0186039 A1).
Zou has been discussed above in regard to claims 7-8 and 17. The difference between Zou and the claimed invention is that Zou does not teach obtaining, by the OLT, the first frame from a payload of the second frame. Luo et al. teaches in FIG. 6 that the MAC frame is encapsulated in the payload of a GEM frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Luo et al. with the method of Zou because Luo et al. teaches details that are missing from Luo et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the first frame from the payload of the GEM frame, as taught by Luo et al., in the method of Zou.
Regarding claim 18, Luo et al. teaches in FIG. 8 that an OLT, which is a network element, comprises processor 825; Zou teaches in paragraph [0008] that the client signal is mapped into the payload of a OPUk which is part of an OTN frame.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou and Luo et al. as applied to claims 9 and 18 above, and further in view of Gorshe (Gorshe, “A Tutorial on ITU-T G.709 Optical Transport Networks (OTN)”, PMC-Sierra, 2010).
Zou and Luo et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 9 and 18. The difference between Zou and Luo et al. and the claimed invention is that Zou and Luo et al. do not teach mapping the first frame to a first optical channel data unit (ODU) frame, wherein the first OTU frame comprises the first ODU frame. Gorshe teaches in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 the structure of a OTN signal frame which comprises a ODUk frame where the ODUk has the OPUk frame as payload. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Gorshe with the modified system of Zou and Luo et al. because ITU-T G.709 is an international standard. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to map the OPUk into a payload of an ODU frame, as taught by Gorshe, in the modified system of Zou and Luo et al.
Regarding claim 19, Luo et al. teaches in FIG. 8 that an OLT, which is a network element, comprises processor 825.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2008/0095535 A1) in view of Chung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0014992 A1) and Johnston et al. (U.S. Patent 9,178,713 B1).
Zou has been discussed above in regard to claims 7-8 and 17. The difference between Zou and the claimed invention is that Zou does not teach before receiving the second frame, the service signal processing method further comprises: receiving a third frame from the ONU, wherein the third frame carries a frame type indication; obtaining, based on the frame type indication, an identifier of a transmission container instance that supports a frame type; and sending a fourth frame to the ONU, wherein the fourth frame comprises the identifier. Chung et al. teaches in FIG. 5 that before the ONU sending data (service signal) to the OLT, it sends a bandwidth request message (third frame) to the OLT and the OLT sends a DBA message (fourth frame) to the ONU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Chung et al. with the method of Zou because dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA) optimizes the bandwidth utilization. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DBA procedure, as taught by Chung et al., in the method of Zou.
The combination of Zou and Chung et al. still fails to teach the detailed format of the messages. Johnston et al. teaches in FIG. 3 upstream frame format and in FIG. 2 downstream frame format. FIG. 3 teaches that the frame carries an ONU ID, a frame type indication (message-ID 340 identifying the type of PLOAM message, see col. 11, lines 23-24) and fields 328, 330, 332 and 334 for the T-CONT. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Johnston et al. with the modified system of Zou and Chung et al. because Johnston et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Zou and Chung et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry a frame type indication, as taught by Johnston et al., in the modified system of Zou and Chung et al.
Regarding claim 20, Chung et al. teaches in paragraph [0101] processor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 12-16 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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.
skl1 June 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights