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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing bandwidth allocation based on application status, i.e., receiving status information, determining whether a CBR application is open or closed, and modifying a bandwidth map to increase or decrease allocated bandwidth accordingly.
The additional recited elements — including an optical line terminal (OLT), optical network terminals (ONTs), a dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA) engine, a bandwidth map, and transmission containers — are recited at a high level of generality and merely provide a nominal field of use or generic computer/network environment in which the abstract idea is performed.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 17 because they merely add further abstract implementation details or source variations for the same bandwidth-management concept.
The dependent claims recite, for example:
open or closed status,
increasing or decreasing allocation,
receiving the indication from an ONT, low latency agent, latency controller, CBR application, or another device.
These additional limitations do not add meaningful technological improvement to the underlying abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-20 are 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “a dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA) engine configured to allocate for one or more transmission containers a constant bit rate (CBR) bandwidth from upstream bandwidth capacity of the PON responsive to registration of one of the one or more transmission containers”. This language is indefinite because:
“allocate for one or more transmission containers a constant bit rate (CBR) bandwidth” is grammatically unclear and does not clearly identify whether bandwidth is allocated to the transmission containers, to the ONTs, or to both.
“responsive to registration of one of the one or more transmission containers” is unclear as to what is being registered, when registration occurs, and whether registration of a transmission container is distinct from registration of an ONT.
“CBR application of the one or more CBR applications” lacks clarity as to the relationship between the application and the transmission container.
“modify CBR bandwidth usage” is indefinite because “usage” is not a clear structural or operational limitation. It is unclear whether this refers to reserving bandwidth, granting bandwidth, scheduling bandwidth, or updating a BW map entry.
Claims 2-4 and 10-12 recite that the status is “open or closed.”
This terminology is indefinite in view of the specification because the disclosure also uses alternative and potentially inconsistent terminology including:
open/closed,
enabled/disabled,
active/inactive,
running/not running,
generating data/not generating data.
It is unclear whether these terms are intended to be synonymous or different states.
Further, claims 3 and 11 recite:“increase CBR bandwidth allocation … responsive to the status … being open” and claims 4 and 12 recite: “decrease CBR bandwidth allocation … responsive to the status … being closed”.
These claims do not clearly define what data condition makes the status “open” or “closed,” and therefore fail to particularly point out the scope of the claimed state-based triggering condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (US 2002/0085492 A1) in view of Conklin et al. (US 2009/0047021 A1).
Claim 1 is directed to a system including:
an optical line terminal (OLT) of a passive optical network (PON) in communication with one or more optical network terminals (ONTs),
a dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA) engine configured to allocate constant bit rate (CBR) bandwidth from upstream bandwidth capacity responsive to registration of transmission containers,
receipt of an indication of a CBR application status,
modification of CBR bandwidth usage in a bandwidth map (BW Map), and
communication of the BW Map to ONTs.
Mukai et al. teach a PON bandwidth management system including:
a station-side apparatus corresponding to an OLT,
a plurality of subscriber-side apparatuses corresponding to ONTs,
a bandwidth controller and congestion detector,
allocation of minimum guaranteed bandwidth,
dynamic adjustment of excess bandwidth,
prioritization of CBR traffic, and
modification of bandwidth allocation based on usage condition and queued transmission signals.
See, e.g., paragraphs [0006]-[0017], [0045]-[0067], [0078]-[0097], [0101]-[0107], and [0117]-[0128].
Conklin et al. teach:
an OLT in a passive optical network,
communication with one or more ONTs,
integrated network functionality within the OLT,
and a PON architecture suitable for managing multiple network services at the headend.
See, e.g., paragraphs [0005]-[0011], [0016]-[0034], and [0043]-[0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the bandwidth allocation teachings of Mukai et al. with the OLT/PON architecture of Conklin et al. because both references are directed to passive optical networks and network resource management. The combination would merely apply known dynamic bandwidth allocation techniques within a known OLT-based PON environment to achieve predictable results, namely, efficient management of upstream traffic and bandwidth allocation for connected ONTs.
Mukai et al. teach dynamically adjusting bandwidth allocation based on network conditions and protecting CBR traffic. Conklin et al. teach an integrated OLT-based PON architecture. Combining the two would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Accordingly, claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Mukai et al. and Conklin et al..
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and further recite:
status being open or closed,
increasing CBR bandwidth allocation when the status is open, and
decreasing CBR bandwidth allocation when the status is closed.
Mukai et al. teach adjusting bandwidth allocation based on network state and prioritizing traffic according to congestion and available bandwidth. It would have been obvious to express the operational state of the CBR application as open/closed and to correspondingly increase or decrease allocated bandwidth, since such state-based allocation is a predictable implementation of the dynamic bandwidth management taught by the prior art.
Therefore, claims 2-4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 5-8 depend from claim 1 and further recite various sources for the indication of CBR application status, including:
at least one ONT,
a low latency agent or latency controller,
a low latency agent in the OLT receiving the indication from the CBR applications, and
a low latency controller on another device.
Mukai et al. teach that status and congestion-related information may be received from subscriber-side apparatuses and used by the bandwidth controller in dynamic allocation decisions. Conklin et al. teach PON/OLT integration. The recited alternative sources of status information are merely obvious design choices for where operational state may originate in a network control system.
Accordingly, claims 5-8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of the references.
Claim 9 recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 1. Mukai et al. teach dynamically allocating bandwidth in a PON, including allocation of minimum guaranteed bandwidth, adjustment of excess bandwidth, and prioritization of CBR traffic. Conklin et al. teach the OLT/PON architecture.
It would have been obvious to perform the claimed method in the known PON architecture of Conklin et al. using the bandwidth allocation techniques of Mukai et al..
Accordingly, claim 9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9 and recite limitations corresponding to claims 2-8.
For the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2-8, claims 10-16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 17 recites a device including processors and memory configured with a DBA engine to perform functions substantially corresponding to those of claim 1.
Mukai et al. teach the functional bandwidth controller / dynamic allocation arrangement in a PON, and Conklin et al. teach an OLT-based PON device architecture. Combining these references would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and recite additional sources for receiving the indication, including:
one of the ONTs,
a second device, and
the CBR application.
These limitations merely recite obvious alternatives for sourcing status information in a PON bandwidth management system. The prior art teaches receiving network-state information from subscriber-side devices and using that information to make allocation decisions.
Accordingly, claims 18-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN ZHEN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
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.
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights