CTNF 18/820,805 CTNF 80192 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The preliminary amendment filed 9/23/2024 has been entered. Claims 1–30 are pending and examined herein. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/PatentForms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1–16 and 18–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With regard to claim 1, the limitation “wherein the PHY link is for transmitting the code blocks” is a limitation that describes characteristics of the PHY link rather than a step of the claimed method. It is not clear if the act of transmitting the code blocks is intended to be part of the claimed method. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to explicitly recite a step of transmitting the code blocks via the PHY link. Appropriate explanation or amendment is required. With regard to claim 2, the limitation “wherein the PHY link is further for transmitting s overhead multiframes” is also a limitation that describes characteristics of the PHY link rather than a step of the claimed method. It is not clear if the act of transmitting the code blocks is intended to be part of the claimed method. Appropriate explanation or amendment is required. With regard to claim 3, the limitation “wherein the slot is for transmitting one of the code blocks” is a limitation that describes characteristics of the slot rather than a step of the claimed method. It is not clear if the act of transmitting the code blocks via the slot is intended to be part of the claimed method. Appropriate explanation or amendment is required. With regard to claim 18, the limitation “wherein the PHY link is for transmitting the code blocks” is a structural limitation that describes characteristics of the PHY link rather than an element of the claimed apparatus. It is not clear if the act of transmitting the code blocks is intended to be performed by the claimed apparatus. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to explicitly recite the portion of the claimed apparatus that is configured to transmit the code blocks via the PHY link. Appropriate explanation or amendment is required. With regard to claim 19, the limitation “wherein the PHY link is further for transmitting s overhead multiframes” is also a limitation that describes characteristics of the PHY link rather than an element of the claimed apparatus. It is not clear if the act of transmitting the code blocks is intended to be performed by the claimed apparatus. Appropriate explanation or amendment is required. With regard to claim 19, the limitation “wherein the slot is for transmitting one of the code blocks” is a limitation that describes characteristics of the slot rather than an element of the claimed apparatus. . It is not clear if the act of transmitting the code blocks via the slot is intended to be performed by the claimed apparatus. Appropriate explanation or amendment is required. All claims not individually rejected are rejected by virtue of their dependency from the above claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 17, 18, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2020/0366412) . With regard to claim 1, Wu discloses a method comprising: obtaining a service flow (OTN device receives service data)(¶109) comprising code blocks (service data includes code blocks)(¶110), wherein the code blocks comprise a data unit (code block includes a payload area containing service data)(¶110) and a type (code block includes identification information that identifies the service data)(¶110) or comprise the type, a type indication, and code block content; and mapping the code blocks to a physical layer (PHY) link (e.g., an inter-domain link or intra-domain network)(fig. 1, ¶59) based on a coding scheme of the code blocks (sending node maps the code blocks to a plurality of consecutive data frames; frame may be one or more OTN frame(s) or a FlexO frame)(¶59; ¶111–114; ¶121–123), wherein the PHY link is for transmitting the code blocks (frames are sent by the sending node via the link)(¶59; ¶124–126). With regard to claim 17, Wu discloses a method comprising: obtaining code blocks over a physical layer (PHY) link receiving node receivs the data frames containing the code blocks)(¶126), wherein the code blocks comprise an overhead code block and a data code block (code block includes payload and overhead areas)(¶110), and wherein the data code block comprises a data unit (code block includes a payload area containing service data)(¶110) and a type (code block includes identification information that identifies the service data)(¶110) or comprises the type, a type indication, and code block content; and demapping the data code block based on a coding scheme of the data code block and the overhead code block to obtain a service flow comprising the data code block (receiving node obtains the identification information and service data from the received code blocks)(¶129–130). Claims 18 and 30 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 17, since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are explicitly or inherently taught by the above cited art . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2020/0366412) in view of Oren et al. (US 2020/0259728) . With regard to claim 12, while the system disclosed by Wu shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed above), including that the code blocks comprise a data code block (e.g., payload area)(¶110), it fails to specifically disclose the code blocks comprise idle code block, wherein before mapping the code blocks, the method further comprises replacing the idle code block with an operation, administration, and maintenance (OAM) code block, and wherein the OAM code block manages the data code block. Oran discloses a similar system for communication via physical layer paths (Abstract). Oran teaches inserting OAM messages in place of Idle control messages within a data stream (¶18) and that the OAM messages manage the data portion of the stream (e.g., OAM messages provide monitoring information or threshold alerts)(¶18). This would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Wu since it would have allowed management information to be placed into the code blocks prior to mapping them to the physical link for transmission, ensuring unimpeded receipt of the management data by the intended recipient, even if one or more incompatible devices are in the communication path (Oran; Abstract; ¶3; ¶17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert OAM messages in place of Idle control messages within a data stream to manage data code blocks of the stream in order to ensure unimpeded receipt of the management data by the intended recipient even if one or more incompatible devices are in the communication path. Claims 29 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 12, since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are explicitly or inherently taught by the above cited art . Allowable Subject Matter As best understood by the Examiner, considered in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 set forth above, claims 2–11, 13–16, and 19–28 appear likely to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON N STRANGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00. 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, Matthew Sked can be reached at 571-272-7627. 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. /AARON N STRANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/820,805 Page 2 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/820,805 Page 3 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/820,805 Page 4 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/820,805 Page 6 Art Unit: 6221
Prosecution Insights