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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2025-03-21 and 2025-03-25 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. No claims have been allowed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) Paragraph [0034]
refers to “network 104,” whereas the surrounding description identifies the relevant network as network 102 and uses reference numeral 104 for the cells or coverage areas. “Network 104” should be corrected to “network 102.”
(b) Paragraph [0048]
refers to “the interconnected devices of network 102” while describing network system 200 and network 202. “Network 102” should be corrected to “network 202.”
(c) Paragraph [0050]
refers to “network 104” while describing network system 200 and network 202. “Network 104” should be corrected to “network 202.”
(d) Paragraphs [0088] and [0092]
use reference numeral 330 to identify two different elements. Paragraph [0088] identifies reference numeral 330 as the sixth connection between alarm module 326 and optical switch 302, while paragraph [0092] separately identifies reference numeral 330 as a source-side module associated with incoming connection 329. Paragraph [0092] also contains the expressions “module 330is” and “module 3 30is,” which lack proper spacing. The reference numerals and text should be corrected for consistency.
(e) Paragraph [0109]
states both that operation 402 continues and that operation 406 is executed when an alarm associated with DU1 is not received. This is internally inconsistent and is also inconsistent with Figure 4, which shows operation 406 following the affirmative determination that the DU1 alarm is received. Paragraph [0109] should be corrected to accurately describe the disclosed decision flow.
(f) Paragraphs [0114]-[0116] and [0121]
contain grammatical, punctuation, and reference errors, including “DU 2One,” “following network faults the network,” reference to method 400 while describing method 500, and “a failover process includes re-routing.” These passages should be corrected so that the disclosure is clear and internally consistent.
(g) Paragraph [0128]
uses “I/0 interface 610,” in which the numeral zero is used instead of the letter O. The term should be corrected to “I/O interface 610.”
(h) Supplemental Notes 6 and 7
recite “the system any of” rather than “the system of any of.” Supplemental Note 7 also refers to “Supplemental Notes 1-7,” thereby including itself in the stated range. The text should be corrected to identify the intended preceding Supplemental Notes without self-reference.
(i) Paragraphs [0165], [0167], [0169], [0171], and [0173]
recite “Supplementals Notes” rather than “Supplemental Notes.” Paragraph [0171] further recites “configured to communicated,” which should be corrected to “configured to communicate.”
Appropriate correction is required. Any amendment to the specification must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(b), and no new matter should be introduced.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “330” has been used in Figure 3 to designate both the sixth connection between alarm module 326 and optical switch 302 and a different source-side module 330 associated with incoming connection 329. The specification likewise identifies the sixth connection as reference numeral 330 in paragraph [0088] and separately identifies the source-side module as reference numeral 330 in paragraph [0092]. The same reference character must not be used to designate different parts.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 because Figures 4 and 5 contain textual errors. Figure 4 recites “DISCONTINUE PACKETS/TRAFFIC DEVLIVERY TO DU2,” in which “DEVLIVERY” should be corrected to “DELIVERY.” Figure 5 recites “ALARM ON OPTIMCAL SWITCH,” in which “OPTIMCAL” should be corrected to “OPTICAL.” These errors must be corrected.
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 Objections
Claims 9, 11, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) Regarding claim 9,
claim 9 recites “ceasing receiving the alarm condition at the optical switch.” The phrase “ceasing receiving” should be corrected to “ceasing to receive.”
(b) Regarding claim 11,
claim 11 recites “The method of clam 8.” The word “clam” should be corrected to “claim.”
(c) Regarding claim 19,
claim 19 recites that “the device is configured to communicated with” the recited radio units. The word “communicated” should be corrected to “communicate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application or the claimed inventions were made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The patent disclosure principally underlying this nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not considered prior art. Consistent with MPEP § 804, the disclosure of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 is considered only to construe the scope of its issued claims and not to supply unclaimed subject matter. The separately cited secondary references qualify as prior art before May 24, 2024 and are relied upon only for the additional limitations expressly identified below.
For purposes of this Office action, the effective filing date and the patent term filing date of the claimed invention are both May 24, 2024.
U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 issued from Application No. 17/909,224 and identifies Rakuten Mobile, Inc. and Rakuten Symphony, Inc. as assignees. The reference patent names Parvez Khan, Nirav Salot, Vinay Vij, and Praveen Konath, each of whom is also named as an inventor in the present application. The presence of common joint inventors independently establishes the common inventive relationship required for a nonstatutory double-patenting analysis; the rejection does not depend solely on a finding of common ownership. The public assignment information also identifies Rakuten entities in the ownership chain. The reference patent has a patent term filing date of August 5, 2022, which precedes the May 24, 2024 patent term filing date of the present application and presents the potential for an unjustified later-expiring patent on a patentably indistinct invention.
The secondary references relied upon below are Gorshe, U.S. Patent No. 6,690,644 B1, issued February 10, 2004; Colton, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0089027 A1, published April 28, 2005; Smith et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,682,158 B2, issued March 25, 2014; and Potharaju et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,304,109 B1, issued April 12, 2022. Each reference predates May 24, 2024 and is available as prior art for the particular secondary teaching for which it is applied.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2, as applicable, in view of Gorshe (U.S. Patent No. 6,690,644 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the reference claims for the reasons set forth below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2
As per claim 1, A system comprising: an optical switch; a first distributed unit (DU) configured to receive first traffic directed from the optical switch along a first optical path, wherein the first DU is configured to generate an alarm condition in response to a failure in a software component of the first DU; and a second DU configured to receive second traffic directed from the optical switch along a second optical path, wherein the optical switch, in response to receiving the alarm condition, is configured to: terminate transmission of the first traffic from the optical switch along the first optical path, and transmit the second traffic directed from the optical switch along a second optical path.
As per claims 8, 9, and 14, A system for distributing traffic, comprising: a first distributed unit (DU); a second DU; an optical switch; and at least one processor configured to: distribute, to the first DU, traffic via a first path; receive, from the first DU, an indication generated by a first dry contact alarm of the first DU that a state has changed in the first DU; switch, by the optical switch, the traffic from the first path to a second path based on the indication from the first DU, wherein the switched traffic does not flow to the first DU; and distribute, to the second DU, the traffic via the second path. Claim 9 further recites that the indication comprises an input alarm received by the optical switch from the first DU. Claim 14 further recites that the first path comprises traffic flow from the optical switch to the first DU and that the second path comprises traffic flow from the optical switch to the second DU.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2
As per claim 8, A method comprising: transmitting first traffic from an optical switch along a first optical path to a first distributed unit (DU), wherein the first DU is configured to generate an alarm condition in response to a failure in a software component of the first DU; and in response to receiving the alarm condition at the optical switch: terminating transmission of the first traffic from the optical switch along the first optical path, and transmitting second traffic from the optical switch along a second optical path.
As per claims 1, 2, and 7, A computer-implemented method of distributing traffic, comprising: distributing, to a first distributed unit (DU), traffic via a first path; receiving, from the first DU, an indication generated by a first dry contact alarm of the first DU that a state has changed in the first DU; switching, by an optical switch, the traffic from the first path to a second path based on the indication from the first DU, wherein the switched traffic does not flow to the first DU; and distributing, to a second DU, the traffic via the second path. Claim 2 further recites that the indication comprises an input alarm received by the optical switch from the first DU. Claim 7 further recites that the first path comprises traffic flow from the optical switch to the first DU and that the second path comprises traffic flow from the optical switch to the second DU.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2
As per claim 14, A device comprising: an optical switch configured to transmit first traffic, along a first optical path, to a first distributed unit (DU), wherein the first DU is configured to generate an alarm condition in response to a failure in a software component of the first DU; and the optical switch further configured to, in response to receiving the alarm condition: terminate transmission of the first traffic along the first optical path, and transmit second traffic, along a second optical path, to a second distributed unit (DU).
As per claims 8, 9, and 14, A system for distributing traffic, comprising: a first distributed unit (DU); a second DU; an optical switch; and at least one processor configured to distribute traffic to the first DU via a first path, receive from the first DU an indication generated by a first dry contact alarm, switch the traffic by the optical switch from the first path to a second path so that the switched traffic does not flow to the first DU, and distribute traffic to the second DU via the second path. Claim 9 further recites that the indication comprises an input alarm received by the optical switch from the first DU. Claim 14 further recites that the first path comprises traffic flow from the optical switch to the first DU and that the second path comprises traffic flow from the optical switch to the second DU.
Issued claims 1 and 8 require an optical switch, first and second DUs, first and second traffic paths, receipt of a first-DU dry-contact indication, switching so that traffic no longer flows to the first DU, and distribution of traffic to the second DU. Issued claims 2 and 9 expressly require the input alarm to be received by the optical switch from the first DU. Issued claims 7 and 14 expressly require traffic flow from the optical switch to the first DU on the first path and from the optical switch to the second DU on the second path. Thus, the principal remaining distinction is the present claims’ express identification of a failure in a software component of the first DU as the source of the alarm condition, together with presentation of the same switching subject matter in system, method, and device forms.
Gorshe expressly teaches protection switching for optical interface units in which each working unit is responsible for detecting faults within its own hardware or software.
Gorshe expressly states: “Each unit is responsible for detecting failures of the span over which it receives PCM data and is primarily responsible for detecting a fault within the unit’s own hardware or software. For example, watchdog timers may be used to detect unit software/firmware failures. When unit (or span) failures are detected, the working unit indicates its failed status to the Standby unit.” [Gorshe, col. 3, ll. 50–60].
Gorshe further teaches: “If the Standby unit is capable of taking over for a working unit failure, it will do so immediately after seeing the failure indication from the working unit. The working unit drops off-line immediately after indicating its failure to a Standby unit that indicates it is available for the Switch.” [Gorshe, col. 3, ll. 60–67].
The failed unit thereafter quits placing data on the backplane and transmitting on the working span, while the partner unit begins transmitting the protected traffic. [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 1–10].
One of ordinary skill in the art before May 24, 2024 would have been motivated to apply Gorshe's known software- and firmware-fault detection to the optical-switch traffic-distribution system claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 because both address uninterrupted optical communications through rapid transfer from an active unit or path to a standby unit or path. The modification would use Gorshe's known watchdog or software-fault indication as the particular first-DU state-change alarm that triggers the traffic transfer already required by the reference claims. Incorporating the switching processor into, or associating it with, the optical switch would have been a routine design choice that preserves the same claimed operation and yields predictable service continuity.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 14 are not patentably distinct from the reference claims.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2, as applicable, in view of Gorshe.
Instant Application
Gorshe - U.S. Patent No. 6,690,644 B1
As per claims 2 and 9, the first DU ceases generating, or the optical switch ceases receiving, the alarm condition in response to a determination that the failure is resolved.
Gorshe teaches: “The failure clears (i.e., the failed unit recovers or is replaced, or, if relevant, the span failure clears) and the restored/replaced unit informs the SCU of its healthy status. The SCU begins a Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer.” [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 17–24].
Instant Application
Gorshe - U.S. Patent No. 6,690,644 B1
As per claims 3, 10, and 15, after the alarm condition ceases, transmission along the second path is terminated and traffic is transmitted again along the first path.
Gorshe teaches revertive operation: “When the WTR timer expires, the SCU provisions the IS unit (i.e., the unit that went to IS after the protection) to be IS-STBY. The SCU provisions the restored/replaced unit (i.e., the original IS unit) to be IS again.” [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 29–35].
The recovery and reversion limitations merely apply Gorshe's known revertive protection procedure to the first-path/second-path traffic switching already claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2. Such restoration would have predictably returned service to the original DU and optical path after the software failure was resolved.
Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 15 are not patentably distinct from the reference claims.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2, as applicable, in view of Gorshe and further in view of Colton (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0089027 A1).
For purposes of this double-patenting rejection only, and without withdrawing the separate rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), claim 17 is interpreted according to its express dependency from claim 14 as adding an alarm module to the device of claim 14 and further requiring that module to perform the stated receiving and transmitting functions.
Instant Application
Reference Claims, Gorshe, and Colton
As per claims 4, 11, 16, and 17, an alarm module receives the alarm condition from the first DU and transmits the alarm condition to the optical switch.
Claims 2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 recite an input alarm received by the optical switch from the first DU, while claim 8 recites an alarm sent from the optical switch to the second DU. Gorshe teaches that the working unit indicates its failed state through a protection-signaling interface. Colton’s optical switching node expressly includes an “ALARM INTERFACE,” and its figures identify GPI alarm inputs and GPO alarm outputs connected to external alarm equipment. [Gorshe, col. 3, ll. 50–67; Colton, FIGS. 7, 10, and 37].
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2
As per claims 5 and 12, the optical switch generates a notification signal in response to receiving the alarm condition from the alarm module.
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 expressly recites that, in response to receiving the first-DU indication, the optical switch sends an alarm to the second DU indicating that the state of the first DU has changed.
Instant Application
Reference Claims and Colton
As per claims 6, 13, and 18, the alarm module transmits the notification signal to the second DU.
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 requires an alarm sent from the optical switch to the second DU. Colton’s optical switching node expressly includes an “ALARM INTERFACE,” and Figure 37 identifies GPI inputs, GPO outputs, an Alarm Panel, and an output to a Central Office Alarm Grid. Interposing that known alarm-interface output in the reference alarm path would preserve the same destination and notification function. [Colton, FIGS. 7, 10, and 37].
The express recitation of an alarm module does not patentably distinguish these claims. Issued claims 2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 require an input alarm received by the optical switch from the first DU, and issued claim 8 requires the optical switch to send an alarm to the second DU. The reference patent’s Figure 3 and supporting description are considered only to construe those broad input-alarm and output-alarm claim relationships and are not treated as prior art. Independently, Colton expressly depicts an ALARM INTERFACE in the optical control architecture, an AIM CONTROL INTERFACE with relay inputs and relay outputs, and GPI/GPO alarm paths connected to external alarm equipment. Using that known alarm-interface structure to receive the first-DU alarm and convey the switch-control or notification signal between the reference optical switch and the second DU would have been the predictable use of a known alarm-interface structure for its established input/output signaling function. Accordingly, claims 4–6, 11–13, and 16–18 are not patentably distinct from the reference claims.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 in view of Gorshe and further in view of Potharaju et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,304,109 B1).
Instant Application
Potharaju - U.S. Patent No. 11,304,109 B1
As per claims 7 and 19, a first set of radio units is connected to the first DU and a second set of radio units is connected to the second DU.
As per claim 14 of Potharaju, the plurality of first radio units are interconnected with a first distributed unit of the VRAN, the plurality of second radio units are interconnected with a second distributed unit of the VRAN, and the first distributed unit and the second distributed unit are interconnected with the central unit of the VRAN.
Potharaju is directed to minimizing service disruption in a virtualized radio access network and expressly teaches respective pluralities of radio units connected to first and second DUs.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use these known DU/RU groupings with the first-DU/second-DU optical-switch protection system claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 so that each redundant DU continues to serve its associated radio units during traffic switchover. The combination would have produced the claimed arrangement with predictable results. Accordingly, claims 7 and 19 are not patentably distinct.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 9, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,500,665 B2 in view of Gorshe and further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,682,158 B2).
For purposes of this double patenting rejection only, and without withdrawing the separate 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 20 is construed as requiring that at least one of the recited optical-signal conditions be the basis for the alarm condition received by the optical switch. Under that construction, Loss of Signal corresponds to failure to receive an expected optical signal, Signal Failure–Bit Error Rate indicates that received optical data are not reliably readable, and Loss of Frame indicates an incomplete or unusable framed optical signal.
Instant Application
Smith - U.S. Patent No. 8,682,158 B2
As per claim 20, the alarm condition is received based on failure to receive an expected optical signal, failure to receive an optical signal comprising readable data, or receiving an incomplete optical signal.
As per claim 8 of Smith, the optical-line defects, events, conditions, or alarms comprise Loss of Signal, Loss of Frame, Alarm Indication Signal-Line, and Signal Failure-Bit Error Rate.
Smith teaches alarm generation from standard optical defects. Loss of Signal corresponds to failure to receive an expected optical signal. Signal Failure–Bit Error Rate corresponds to a received optical signal whose error rate prevents reliable reading of the data. Loss of Frame corresponds to a received signal that cannot be organized into a complete valid frame.
Gorshe additionally teaches that a software or firmware failure in the working unit causes the unit to indicate failure and stop transmitting data on its working span.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use Smith’s established LOS, LOF, and SF-BER criteria to identify the optical manifestation of the software-failure condition supplied by Gorshe in the reference optical-switch protection system. A DU software or firmware failure may cause the DU to stop transmitting, corrupt transmitted data, or provide an incomplete framed signal; Smith’s receiver-side defect criteria provide known objective mechanisms for detecting those consequences and generating the alarm that actuates the already-claimed optical-path switchover. Accordingly, claim 20 is not patentably distinct from the reference claims.
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.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 recites: “The device of claim 14, wherein the alarm module is configured to receive the alarm condition from the first DU and to transmit the alarm condition to the optical switch.”
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the alarm module.” Claim 17 depends directly from claim 14. Claim 14 recites a device comprising an optical switch configured to transmit traffic to a first DU and a second DU, but claim 14 does not introduce an alarm module. Claim 16, rather than claim 14, first introduces “an alarm module.” However, claim 17 does not depend from claim 16 and therefore does not incorporate the alarm module introduced by claim 16.
The uncertainty is not cured by the written description. Paragraph [0165], corresponding to Supplemental Note 16, introduces “an alarm module.” Paragraph [0167], corresponding to Supplemental Note 17, then recites “[t]he device of any of Supplementals Notes 14-16, wherein the alarm module is configured to receive the alarm condition from the first DU and to transmit the alarm condition to the optical switch.” Supplemental Notes 14 and 15 do not introduce an alarm module. Thus, when Supplemental Note 17 is read as referring to Supplemental Note 14 or 15, the written description repeats the same unresolved antecedent-basis problem rather than clarifying the intended relationship.
Figure 3 further depicts optical switch 302 and alarm module 326 as separately identified components joined by connections. As written, it is unclear whether claim 17 was intended to: (i) depend from claim 16 and further limit the alarm module introduced by claim 16; (ii) add a new alarm module as an additional component of the device of claim 14; or (iii) merely recite a functional relationship between the claimed device and an external alarm module. These interpretations result in materially different structural scope.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 17 are not reasonably certain, and claim 17 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 18,
Claim 18 recites: “The device of claim 17, wherein the alarm module is configured to transmit a notification signal to the second DU.”
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and incorporates all limitations of claim 17. Because claim 17 fails to establish with reasonable certainty the antecedent identity and claimed status of “the alarm module,” claim 18 inherits that uncertainty. Claim 18 does not clarify whether the recited alarm module is the alarm module of claim 16, a newly added component of the device, or an external component functionally related to the device.
The written description again does not cure the defect. Paragraph [0169], corresponding to Supplemental Note 18, recites “[t]he device of any of Supplementals Notes 14-17, wherein the alarm module is configured to transmit a notification signal to the second DU.” Because Supplemental Notes 14 and 15 do not introduce an alarm module, Supplemental Note 18 preserves the same uncertainty when read from those embodiments.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 18 are not reasonably certain, and claim 18 is indefinite.
Accordingly, claims 17 and 18 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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 (Rev. 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 1-3, 8-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arham et al. (US11895020B1) in view of Gorshe (US6690644B1).
Claim 1
Arham expressly teaches the claimed physical 5G radio-access-network architecture containing an optical switch, multiple distributed-unit servers, distinct optical links, and active/standby traffic switchover.
Arham states: “Optical switch 27 may represent a 2-channel optical fiber bypass switch having Active/Standby switchover to automatically switch optical network traffic to prevent link failure during power loss or other failure event. Active DU server 12A has physical network links with each of DU servers 12B-12D and with optical switch 27. Standby DU server 12B has physical network links with each of DU servers 12A-12D and TOR 26 via optical switch 27.” [Arham, col. 12, ll. 52–65; FIG. 1].
Arham further explains: “In this topology, cascaded DU servers 12C-12D can only reach TOR switch 26/PE 21/GC/EDC via one of DU servers 12A or 12B. In effect, the active one of DU servers 12A, 12B operates as a transit switch to enable end to end L2 connectivity between DUs 22C, 22D and PE 21.” [Arham, col. 13, ll. 5–12].
Arham expressly confirms that the optical links carry traffic in both directions: “The term “physical network link” or “physical link” may refer to multiple physical links, one for each direction.” [Arham, col. 13, ll. 1–4].
Accordingly, the optical link between optical switch 27 and each DU includes a switch-to-DU direction as well as a DU-to-switch direction. Thus, Arham expressly supports the claimed first traffic and second traffic being directed from the optical switch along respective optical paths to the first and second DUs, rather than merely traffic traveling from a DU toward the switch.
Arham expressly claims the optical-path switchover as follows: “switching, by the optical switch in response to a failover event, from the second physical link to the fourth physical link to cause the third DU server to operate as an active DU server for the cell site and the first DU server to operate as a standby DU server for the cell site.” [Arham, claim 13; col. 25, ll. 22–39].
Accordingly, Arham teaches an optical switch connected through a first optical path to a first DU and through a second optical path to a second DU, with traffic carried through an active DU path and switched to a standby DU path in response to a failover event. The change from the first optical link to the second optical link necessarily discontinues use of the first traffic path for the affected traffic and causes the second traffic to be carried on the second optical path.
Arham does not expressly limit its failover trigger to a failure in a software component of the first DU or expressly describe the first DU as generating the claimed alarm condition.
Gorshe expressly teaches these missing limitations in a redundant telecommunications protection system.
Gorshe states: “Each unit is responsible for detecting failures of the span over which it receives PCM data and is primarily responsible for detecting a fault within the unit’s own hardware or software. For example, watchdog timers may be used to detect unit software/firmware failures. When unit (or span) failures are detected, the working unit indicates its failed status to the Standby unit.” [Gorshe, col. 3, ll. 50–60].
Gorshe further states: “If the Standby unit is capable of taking over for a working unit failure, it will do so immediately after seeing the failure indication from the working unit. The working unit drops off-line immediately after indicating its failure to a Standby unit that indicates it is available for the Switch.” [Gorshe, col. 3, ll. 60–67].
Gorshe also describes the corresponding traffic-transfer operation: “If the partner unit is capable of carrying valid traffic, then the IS unit indicates its failure state to the partner and quits placing all PCM data onto the backplane (and quits transmitting data on the span for 1:1 cases). The partner unit detects the failure of the IS unit and begins placing PCM onto the PCM buses (and transmit data on the span for 1:1 cases).” [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 1–10].
Thus, the combination teaches every limitation of claim 1: Arham supplies the optical switch, first and second DUs, first and second optical paths, active/standby architecture, and path switching; Gorshe supplies detection of a software/firmware failure by the first operating unit, generation and transmission of a failure indication, removal of the failed traffic path from service, and takeover by the standby traffic path.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before May 24, 2024 to apply Gorshe’s known software-fault detection and unit-generated failure indication to Arham’s active/standby DU architecture because both references solve the same technical problem: maintaining telecommunications service when an active network unit or its associated path fails. Arham already teaches that optical switch 27 automatically changes the optical traffic path upon a failure event, while Gorshe teaches a fast and reliable way for the active unit itself to detect a software or firmware failure and signal the redundant unit. Incorporating that known indication into the optical-switch failover input would have predictably enabled the optical switch to terminate the first-path traffic and direct replacement traffic over the second path without changing the basic operating principle of either system. The modification would also have reduced service interruption, localized fault detection at the component most capable of identifying its own software failure, and provided a reasonable expectation of successful failover because both references expressly use active/standby protection switching for communications traffic.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 2 additionally requires the first DU to cease generating the alarm condition in response to a determination that the failure is resolved.
In particular, the cited combination includes the optical switch, the active first DU and standby second DU, the respective optical paths, the first DU software-failure indication, and the switch of traffic from the failed first path to the second path.
Gorshe expressly teaches cessation of the failure indication after recovery: “The failure clears (i.e., the failed unit recovers or is replaced, or, if relevant, the span failure clears) and the restored/replaced unit informs the SCU of its healthy status. The SCU begins a Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer.” [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 17–24].
The restored unit’s transmission of a healthy status after the failure clears is the functional equivalent of ceasing to generate the prior alarm condition in response to determining that the software failure has been resolved. The alarm indication identifies the failed state; the healthy-status indication and commencement of wait-to-restore processing establish that the failure indication no longer governs the system.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use Gorshe’s alarm-clearing and healthy-status mechanism in Arham’s DU failover arrangement because a redundant optical network must distinguish a continuing fault from a resolved fault before restoring traffic. Clearing the alarm after a verified recovery avoids unnecessary continued use of the backup path, prevents oscillation caused by stale failure information, and permits controlled reversion only after the first DU is again capable of service. This was a predictable use of a known recovery-status mechanism according to its established function.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 2 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 3 additionally requires the optical switch, after the alarm condition ceases, to terminate transmission of the second traffic along the second optical path and transmit third traffic along the first optical path.
In particular, the combination teaches first-path operation, failover to the second optical path after a first-DU software alarm, and cessation of that alarm after the first DU recovers.
Gorshe expressly teaches revertive restoration: “When the WTR timer expires, the SCU provisions the IS unit (i.e., the unit that went to IS after the protection) to be IS-STBY. The SCU provisions the restored/replaced unit (i.e., the original IS unit) to be IS again.” [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 29–35].
Gorshe claim 9 likewise recites: “after the failed working unit recovers or is replaced and is operable to perform its functions, or after the span failure clears, and the recovered or replaced unit informs the system controller that it is operable to perform its functions and a wait-to-restore timer is initiated and has expired, the system controller provisions the standby unit that went to in-Service after the protection to be in-service-standby and provisions the recovered or replaced unit to be in-service again.” [Gorshe, claim 9; col. 13, ll. 55–64].
Applied to Arham’s two optical DU paths, this known reversion causes the optical switch to terminate the backup or second-path traffic and resume traffic over the original first optical path after the first DU is restored. The resulting traffic on the restored first path corresponds to the claimed third traffic.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide this revertive operation because Arham identifies one DU as active and another as standby, while Gorshe teaches that the original working unit can be returned to service after recovery and a wait-to-restore period. Returning traffic to the designated primary DU preserves the intended network topology, releases the standby DU for future protection, prevents permanent consumption of backup capacity, and yields the predictable result of restoring normal routing after fault clearance.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites the method counterpart of claim 1.
Arham expressly claims a method in which an optical switch changes from a first physical optical link associated with an active DU to another physical optical link associated with a standby DU in response to a failover event.
Arham claim 13 recites: “wherein the second physical link comprises optical links between the first DU server and an optical switch and between the optical switch and the L2 switch; wherein a third DU server of the plurality of DU servers is connected by a third physical link to the second DU server and is connected by a fourth physical link to the L2 switch, and wherein the fourth physical link comprises optical links between the third DU server and the optical switch and between the optical switch and the L2 switch.” [Arham, claim 13; col. 25, ll. 22-33].
Arham the same claim then requires: “switching, by the optical switch in response to a failover event, from the second physical link to the fourth physical link to cause the third DU server to operate as an active DU server for the cell site and the first DU server to operate as a standby DU server for the cell site.” [Arham, claim 13; col. 25, ll. 33–39].
Arham also states: “The term “physical network link” or “physical link” may refer to multiple physical links, one for each direction.” [Arham, col. 13, ll. 1-4].
Therefore, the method expressly encompasses transmitting traffic from the optical switch toward the active DU on the first optical-link direction and, following failover, transmitting replacement traffic from the optical switch toward the standby DU on the corresponding second optical-link direction.
Gorshe supplies the method step in which the first unit detects a software failure and sends the failure indication: “Each unit is responsible for detecting failures of the span over which it receives PCM data and is primarily responsible for detecting a fault within the unit’s own hardware or software. For example, watchdog timers may be used to detect unit software/firmware failures. When unit (or span) failures are detected, the working unit indicates its failed status to the Standby unit.” [Gorshe, col. 3, ll. 50–60].
Gorshe further teaches terminating the failed-unit traffic and beginning standby traffic: “the in-service working unit indicates its failure state to the standby unit through the first line and stops placing data onto a backplane, and stops transmitting data on shared metallic spans for 1:1 configurations, and the standby unit, upon detecting a failure of the working unit, begins placing data onto data buses, and transmits data on spans for a 1:1 configuration.” [Gorshe, claim 8; col. 13, ll. 35–53].
The combination therefore teaches transmitting first traffic along the first optical path to the first DU, receiving the first-DU software-failure alarm at the switching arrangement, terminating the first-path transmission, and transmitting second traffic along the second optical path.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these method steps for the same detailed reasons stated for claim 1: Arham provides the physical optical DU switchover, and Gorshe provides localized software-fault detection and immediate traffic transfer. The combination predictably minimizes data loss and maintains service continuity.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 8 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 9 additionally requires ceasing to receive the alarm condition at the optical switch in response to a determination that the failure is resolved.
In particular, the combined method transmits first traffic to the first DU, receives a software-failure indication, terminates first-path transmission, and carries replacement traffic on the second path.
Gorshe teaches that after recovery: “The failure clears (i.e., the failed unit recovers or is replaced, or, if relevant, the span failure clears) and the restored/replaced unit informs the SCU of its healthy status.” [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 17–21].
For purposes of prior-art analysis, the phrase “ceasing receiving” is understood as “ceasing to receive.” When the original DU reports healthy status after the failure clears, the switch/controller no longer receives the prior failure alarm, directly satisfying the claimed cessation of alarm receipt following a determination that the failure is resolved.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to discontinue reliance on the alarm after verified recovery because retaining a stale alarm would unnecessarily lock the network on the backup path. Clearing the alarm permits orderly restoration while reducing false failover and repeated switching.
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 9 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 10 additionally requires terminating transmission of the second traffic along the second optical path and transmitting third traffic along the first optical path.
In particular, the cited method includes failover from the first optical path to the second path and cessation of the alarm after the first DU is again healthy.
Gorshe expressly teaches returning the original working unit to service after the wait-to-restore period: “the system controller provisions the standby unit that went to in-Service after the protection to be in-service-standby and provisions the recovered or replaced unit to be in-service again.” [Gorshe, claim 9; col. 13, ll. 55–64].
In the optical-path architecture of Arham this known reversion terminates the second-path traffic directed to the temporary active DU and transmits replacement or third traffic along the restored first optical path to the original DU.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to restore the normal path after the fault was cleared because the first DU was the designated active unit, the second DU was maintained as standby protection, and reversion makes the standby capacity available for another failure. The use of a wait-to-restore interval further provides stability and a reasonable expectation that the first DU is genuinely recovered before the traffic path changes again.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites a device centered on the optical switch.
Arham expressly discloses and claims such an optical switch in a cell-site device architecture.
Arham states: “Optical switch 27 may represent a 2-channel optical fiber bypass switch having Active/Standby switchover to automatically switch optical network traffic to prevent link failure during power loss or other failure event.” [Arham, col. 12, ll. 52–57].
Arham further claims the device-level optical-link arrangement: “an optical switch, wherein the second physical link comprises optical links between the first DU server and the optical switch and between the optical switch and the L2 switch.” [Arham, claim 3; col. 23, ll. 63–65 and col. 24, ll. 1–3].
Arham expressly clarifies the traffic direction available on those links: “The term “physical network link” or “physical link” may refer to multiple physical links, one for each direction.” [Arham, col. 13, ll. 1–4].
Accordingly, optical switch 27 is configured not only to receive traffic from a DU-side link, but also to transmit traffic in the opposite switch-to-DU direction along the same physical optical-link arrangement. This expressly supports the device recitation that first and second traffic are transmitted from the optical switch to the respective DUs.
Gorshe supplies the software-failure alarm and immediate transfer behavior: “watchdog timers may be used to detect unit software/firmware failures. When unit (or span) failures are detected, the working unit indicates its failed status to the Standby unit.” [Gorshe, col. 3, ll. 55–60].
Gorshe further teaches: “The working unit drops off-line immediately after indicating its failure to a Standby unit that indicates it is available for the Switch.” [Gorshe, col. 3, ll. 63–67].
Thus, the combined device includes an optical switch transmitting first traffic along a first optical path to a first DU, receiving a software-failure alarm generated by that DU, terminating the failed-path traffic, and transmitting second traffic along a second optical path to a second DU.
One of ordinary skill would have combined Gorshe’s software-failure indication with Arham’s optical bypass switch for the same reasons detailed for claims 1 and 8: rapid local fault detection, reduced service interruption, and predictable activation of the standby DU path.
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 14 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 15 additionally requires the device, in response to ceasing to receive the alarm condition, to terminate transmission of the second traffic along the second optical path and transmit third traffic along the first optical path.
In particular, the combined device includes the optical switch, first and second optical paths, first and second DUs, first-DU software alarm, termination of first-path traffic, and activation of second-path traffic.
Gorshe teaches the required restoration sequence: “When the WTR timer expires, the SCU provisions the IS unit (i.e., the unit that went to IS after the protection) to be IS-STBY. The SCU provisions the restored/replaced unit (i.e., the original IS unit) to be IS again.” [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 29–35].
Applied to the optical-switch device of Arham, the second-path transmission is terminated and third traffic is transmitted along the restored first optical path after the switch ceases receiving the alarm condition.
The motivation is the same predictable restoration rationale discussed for claims 3 and 10: preserve the primary topology, free the standby unit for protection, and avoid leaving the network permanently on a backup path after the first DU has recovered.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arham et al. in view of Gorshe, further in view of Colton (US20050089027A1), and further in view of the PLANET IFB-244 Series User’s Manual.
The PLANET IFB-244 Series User’s Manual bears the statement “Copyright © PLANET Technology Corp. 2019,” and its EC Declaration of Conformity is dated “Jan. 14, 2019.” [IFB-244 Manual, p. 19 and EC Declaration of Conformity following p. 19]. Public availability of IFB-244 product documentation before the effective filing date is further corroborated on the face of Arham, which lists PLANET’s “IFB-244 Series-2-channel Optical Fiber Bypass Switch” product documentation as a 2023 publication retrieved from the Internet on January 5, 2023. [Arham, Other Publications, p. 2]. Accordingly, the cited IFB-244 documentation predates the May 24, 2024 effective filing date used in this action.
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 4 additionally requires an alarm module configured to receive the alarm condition from the first DU and transmit the alarm condition to the optical switch.
In particular, Arham and Gorshe collectively teach the optical switch, first and second DUs and optical paths, the first-DU software-failure alarm, termination of the first-path traffic, and transfer of traffic to the second path.
Colton teaches a dedicated alarm-interface structure within an optical switching node. Figure 7 expressly identifies an “ALARM INTERFACE” connected within the optical control architecture and a “Simplex connection to IOS System Bay Alarms and CO Alarm Grid.” [Colton, FIG. 7, published sheet 7 of 120, PDF p. 8]. Figure 10 is expressly titled “AIM CONTROL INTERFACE” and identifies relay inputs and relay outputs. [Colton, FIG. 10, published sheet 10 of 120, PDF p. 11]. Figure 37 further identifies “GPI” inputs, “GPO” outputs, an “Alarm Panel,” and an output “To Central Office Alarm Grid.” [Colton, FIG. 37, published sheet 35 of 120, PDF p. 36].
These labeled input and output structures teach an alarm module that receives an external failure indication and communicates a corresponding signal to the optical-switch control equipment.
The IFB-244 Manual provides a concrete relay/terminal implementation for the same class of two-channel optical bypass switch: “Removable 6-pin terminal block for power input. Pin 1/2 for Power 1, Pin 5/6 for Power 2. Pin 3/4 for fault alarm. One relay output for power failure.” [IFB-244 Manual, p. 5].
The manual further identifies the fault state: “Hardware indicates either Power 1 or Power 2 has no power.” [IFB-244 Manual, p. 10].
In the proposed combination, the first DU’s software-failure output taught by Gorshe is connected to a GPI/fault-alarm input of the known alarm module. The alarm interface conditions or isolates that input and communicates the resulting alarm to optical switch 27 as the switch’s failover-control input. This expressly preserves the claimed actor sequence: the first DU generates the alarm condition; the alarm module receives it from the first DU; and the alarm module transmits the alarm condition to the optical switch.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to place Colton’s alarm interface or the IFB-244 relay/terminal interface between the DU and the optical bypass switch because a DU output and a switch-control input commonly require electrical isolation, contact conversion, level translation, debounce, connector adaptation, and deterministic state retention. The modification uses known alarm-interface hardware for its established function, provides a reliable dry-contact or GPI path to the switch controller, and does not alter the basic traffic-switching principle of Arham or the software-failure detection principle of Gorshe.
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, all limitations of claim 4 are taught by Arham, Gorshe, Colton, and the IFB-244 Manual documentation for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 5 additionally requires the optical switch to generate a notification signal in response to receiving the alarm condition from the alarm module.
In particular, the modified system includes the first-DU-generated software-failure alarm and a GPI/fault-alarm module that receives the alarm and communicates it to the optical bypass switch.
Gorshe teaches generation of a switch-event notification after the protection transfer: “The partner unit detects the failure of the IS unit and begins placing PCM onto the PCM buses. The partner unit informs the SCU of the switch event.” [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 5–12].
Colton teaches that the optical-switch control architecture itself includes an “ALARM INTERFACE” and switch-controller “GPO” outputs directed “To Central Office Alarm Grid,” thereby providing a known output by which the optical switching node generates an external notification. [Colton, FIGS. 7 and 37, published sheets 7 and 35 of 120].
The IFB-244 optical bypass switch likewise includes a “FAULT” indication and “One relay output for power failure.” [IFB-244 Manual, pp. 5 and 10].
It would therefore have been obvious to configure optical switch 27, including its switch controller and alarm-output circuitry, to assert a GPO/relay notification after receiving the first-DU alarm through the alarm module and completing the optical path change. The alarm condition is the event that causes the switch operation, and the switch-event output taught by Gorshe and the GPO/relay structures taught by Colton and the IFB-244 Manual provide the known mechanism for generating the claimed notification signal.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to generate the notification at the optical switch because the switch is the component that can verify its commanded path state. A switch-generated output confirms successful completion of the traffic reroute, synchronizes supervisory control and the backup DU, supports event logging and maintenance, and distinguishes mere receipt of a fault from actual transition to the protection path. The result is a predictable use of a known optical-switch alarm output according to its established function.
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 5 are taught by Arham, Gorshe, Colton, and the IFB-244 Manual documentation for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 6 additionally requires the alarm module to transmit the notification signal to the second DU.
In particular, the combination includes the alarm module, receipt of the first-DU alarm by that module, path switching by the optical switch, and generation of a switch-event notification by the switch controller.
Gorshe teaches a control message to the standby unit so that it assumes the protected traffic function: “the system controller transmits a message to the standby unit to disconnect the failed working unit from metallic span interface signals and connect its own circuits to the metallic span interface signals, if both units share the same span, and begin transmitting data over the data buses.” [Gorshe, claim 20; col. 14, ll. 42–53].
Colton expressly supplies both sides of the alarm-module signaling path: “GPI” inputs and “GPO” outputs, together with an “Alarm Panel” and external alarm-grid connection. [Colton, FIG. 37, published sheet 35 of 120, PDF p. 36].
Thus, the same alarm module can receive the first-DU alarm on its GPI side and, after the switch controller asserts the switch-event notification, transmit that notification on a GPO/relay output to the second DU.
This mapping preserves every claimed actor: the optical switch generates the notification signal; the alarm module receives that switch-generated signal through its internal/output-control path; and the alarm module transmits the notification to the second DU, which corresponds to Gorshe’s standby unit. The GPO output may be wired to the second DU’s alarm/contact input in the same manner that Colton routes GPO alarm signals to external equipment.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to send the switch-event notification through the existing alarm module because the module already provides isolated, deterministic external signaling and contains both input and output paths. Reusing the GPO/relay output reduces additional wiring and components, ensures that the second DU is activated only after the optical path has changed, and prevents traffic loss, duplicate transmission, or inconsistent active/standby state. The modification is the predictable optical implementation of Gorshe’s standby-unit control message.
Claim 11
For purposes of the prior-art rejection, “clam 8” is interpreted as “claim 8,” without withdrawing the separate claim objection.
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 8 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 11 additionally requires receiving the alarm condition from the first DU at an alarm module and transmitting the alarm condition from the alarm module to the optical switch.
Colton’s optical switching node includes a dedicated “ALARM INTERFACE” and Figure 37 identifies “GPI” inputs and “GPO” outputs. [Colton, FIG. 7, published sheet 7 of 120, PDF p. 8; FIG. 37, published sheet 35 of 120, PDF p. 36].
The IFB-244 Manual likewise identifies “Pin 3/4 for fault alarm” and “One relay output for power failure.” [IFB-244 Manual, p. 5].
Accordingly, the method receives the first DU’s software-failure alarm at the GPI/fault input of the alarm module and transmits the alarm through the module to the optical-switch controller. One of ordinary skill would have used this known interface for the same isolation, level-translation, connector-compatibility, debounce, and reliable state-conversion reasons explained for claim 4. Claim 11 is therefore the method use of the physical alarm-interface arrangement rendered obvious for claim 4.
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 11 are taught by Arham, Gorshe, Colton, and the IFB-244 Manual documentation for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 12 additionally requires generating, by the optical switch, a notification signal in response to receiving the alarm condition from the alarm module.
In particular, the method receives the first-DU software-failure alarm at the alarm module and transmits that alarm through the module to the optical switch.
Gorshe teaches reporting the completed protection switch: “The partner unit informs the SCU of the switch event.” [Gorshe, col. 5, ll. 9–12].
Colton teaches switch-controller “GPO” outputs and an “ALARM INTERFACE” for conveying an external notification from the optical switching node. [Colton, FIGS. 7 and 37]. The IFB-244 switch likewise provides a fault indication and relay output. [IFB-244 Manual, pp. 5 and 10].
It would have been obvious to generate the notification by the optical switch after it receives the alarm and completes the path change because the switch controller is the component that knows the actual selected optical path. The notification confirms completion of the protection operation, enables logging and supervisory control, and provides a reliable event signal for the second DU. This is the predictable method counterpart of the switch-output arrangement explained for claim 5.
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Arham, Gorshe, Colton, and the IFB-244 Manual documentation for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 13 additionally requires transmitting the notification signal from the alarm module to the second DU.
In particular, the method includes the alarm module and generation of the notification signal by the optical switch following receipt of the first-DU alarm and completion of the path change.
Gorshe expressly teaches sending a message to the standby unit so that it assumes traffic: “the system controller transmits a message to the standby unit to disconnect the failed working unit from metallic span interface signals and connect its own circuits to the metallic span interface signals, if both units share the same span, and begin transmitting data over the data buses.” [Gorshe, claim 20; col. 14, ll. 42–53].
Colton’s alarm module includes both “GPI” and “GPO” paths. [Colton, FIG. 37].
In the combined method, the first-DU alarm enters the module on a GPI/fault input, the optical switch generates the completed-switch notification, and the module transmits that notification to the second DU on a GPO/relay output.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to transmit the notification in this manner to coordinate the second DU’s activation with the confirmed optical-path state, to avoid premature or duplicate traffic handling, and to use the existing isolated alarm wiring rather than introduce a separate signaling network. The result is a predictable and synchronized failover sequence.
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 16 additionally requires the device to further comprise an alarm module.
In particular, the device includes the optical switch, first and second DU optical paths, software-failure-triggered failover, and restoration to the first path after the first DU recovers.
Colton teaches a distinct “ALARM INTERFACE” within an optical switching node and identifies “GPI” alarm inputs, “GPO” alarm outputs, and an “Alarm Panel.” [Colton, FIGS. 7 and 37].
The IFB-244 Manual independently teaches a removable terminal block with dedicated fault-alarm pins and a relay output in a two-channel optical bypass switch. [IFB-244 Manual, p. 5].
These structures are an alarm module within the ordinary meaning of claim 16.
One of ordinary skill would have included the module in the claim-15 device to provide a dedicated physical interface for receiving a DU failure contact, conditioning or isolating the signal, communicating it to the switch controller, and outputting the resulting switch state. The modification is a routine and predictable implementation of known optical alarm-interface hardware.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 14 but recites “the alarm module” without antecedent basis. For purposes of this prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the § 112(b) rejection, claim 17 is interpreted according to its express dependency as adding an alarm module to the device of claim 14 and requiring that module to receive the alarm condition from the first DU and transmit the alarm condition to the optical switch.
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 14 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that, under the interpretation stated above, claim 17 additionally adds an alarm module configured to receive the alarm condition from the first DU and transmit the alarm condition to the optical switch.
Gorshe teaches the first unit’s failure output: “When unit (or span) failures are detected, the working unit indicates its failed status to the Standby unit.” [Gorshe, col. 3, ll. 57–60].
Colton provides the actor-specific interface: the module has “GPI” inputs for receiving an external alarm and an “ALARM INTERFACE” connected into the optical switch-control system. [Colton, FIGS. 7 and 37].
The IFB-244 terminal block provides a concrete fault-alarm contact/relay implementation. [IFB-244 Manual, p. 5].
Under this interpretation, the first DU’s software-failure indication is received at the alarm module’s GPI/fault input and is transmitted through the alarm interface to optical switch 27. One of ordinary skill would have made this connection because it provides isolation, level conversion, contact adaptation, and a deterministic failover trigger using known alarm-interface components for their established functions.
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 17 are taught by Arham, Gorshe, Colton, and the PLANET IFB-244 documentation for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 18 additionally requires the alarm module to transmit a notification signal to the second DU.
In particular, the interpreted device includes the alarm module receiving the first-DU alarm on its GPI/fault input and transmitting the alarm through the alarm interface to the optical switch.
Gorshe teaches notification and activation of the standby unit: “the standby unit, upon detecting a failure of the working unit, begins placing data onto data buses, and transmits data on spans for a 1:1 configuration, and the standby unit notifies a System controller of the switch.” [Gorshe, claim 8; col. 13, ll. 35–53].
Colton teaches that the alarm module also includes “GPO” outputs to external alarm equipment. [Colton, FIG. 37].
After optical switch 27 generates its completed-switch notification, the alarm module transmits that notification on a GPO/relay output to the second DU. This is the optical implementation of the standby/control notification exchange taught by Gorshe.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to route the notification through the alarm module because the module already provides isolated external signaling and a defined output contact. The connection ensures that the second DU is synchronized with the actual switch position and ready to process the redirected traffic, while preventing duplicate transmission, premature takeover, and inconsistent active/standby status. The modification produces the predictable result of coordinated optical failover.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arham et al. in view of Gorshe, further in view of Potharaju et al. (US11304109B1).
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 7 additionally requires a first set of radio units connected to the first DU and a second set of radio units connected to the second DU.
In particular, Arham and Gorshe teach the optical switch, first and second DUs and paths, software-failure alarm, and transfer of traffic from the first DU path to the second DU path.
Arham teaches the DU/RU relationship: “one or more RUs may be supported by a single DU.” [Arham, col. 12, ll. 54–56].
Arham further states: “Although not shown in FIG. 1, each of DU servers 12 may have physical links to one or more RUs 14.” [Arham, col. 13, ll. 10–13].
Potharaju expressly teaches the two respective RU sets: “the plurality of first radio units are interconnected with a first distributed unit of the VRAN, the plurality of second radio units are interconnected with a second distributed unit of the VRAN, and the first distributed unit and the second distributed unit are interconnected with the central unit of the VRAN.” [Potharaju, claim 14; col. 20, ll. 52–58].
Accordingly, the cited combination teaches a first set of RUs connected to the first DU and a second set of RUs connected to the second DU.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply Potharaju’s respective RU-group arrangement to Arham’s active/standby DU cell site because the DUs in a disaggregated RAN perform processing for radio units, and providing each DU with its own associated RU set is a known way to provide separate coverage, distribute load, and preserve service when one DU fails. The modification would have predictably allowed the second DU and its RU set to continue radio service after the first DU’s software failure, with a reasonable expectation of success because both references use standard VRAN DU/RU interfaces.
Claim 19
For purposes of prior-art analysis, “configured to communicated” is understood as “configured to communicate,” without withdrawing the separate claim objection.
With respect to claim 19, all limitations of claim 14 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that, under the interpretation stated above, claim 19 additionally requires the device to communicate with a first set of radio units connected to the first DU and a second set of radio units connected to the second DU.
Potharaju again expressly recites: “the plurality of first radio units are interconnected with a first distributed unit of the VRAN, the plurality of second radio units are interconnected with a second distributed unit of the VRAN.” [Potharaju, claim 14; col. 20, ll. 52–57].
The claimed device is therefore configured to communicate with the first RU set connected to the first DU and the second RU set connected to the second DU.
Arham also teaches that each DU server may have physical links to one or more RUs, confirming that the proposed combination preserves the ordinary DU/RU communication relationship.
One of ordinary skill would have made this combination for the same detailed reasons stated for claim 7: standard RAN architecture associates RUs with DUs, and two DU/RU groups provide known redundancy, coverage, and load-distribution benefits. The configuration permits the optical-switch device to redirect network traffic to a second DU that already communicates with its own radio units.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arham et al. in view of Gorshe, further in view of Smith et al. (US8682158B2).
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, all limitations of claim 14 are taught by Arham and Gorshe for the detailed reasons stated above, except that claim 20 additionally requires the alarm condition to be received based on failure to receive an expected optical signal, failure to receive an optical signal comprising readable data, or receiving an incomplete optical signal.
In particular, Arham and Gorshe teach the optical-switch device, first and second DU optical paths, a first-DU software-failure alarm, termination of first-path traffic, and transfer to the second path.
Claim 20 does not require a particular detector location. For purposes of this prior-art rejection, the claim is construed as requiring that at least one listed optical-signal defect be the basis for the alarm condition received by the optical switch. The cited combination places the detector at a receiver associated with the first DU path or the optical switch, where standard optical-line monitoring is ordinarily performed.
Smith teaches optical-line fault conditions and corresponding alarms: “The plurality of defects, events, conditions, or alarms may include any of Loss of Signal, Loss of Frame, Alarm Indication Signal-Line, and Signal Failure-Bit Error Rate.” [Smith, col. 2, ll. 17–22; see also claim 8, col. 12, ll. 48–51].
Smith further explains: “For example with SONET/SDH, any one of LOS, LOF, AIS-L and SF-BER may be used to set the link state. As such, if any of the LOS, LOF, AIS-L and SF-BER are UP, then the link state is DOWN.” [Smith, col. 11, ll. 35–46].
Smith also states: “For example, exemplary failures such as Loss of Frame (LOF), Loss of Signal (LOS), etc. generate alarms when they occur. Defects on a line are always recognized and result in the framer generating LOS, LOF, etc.” [Smith, col. 1, ll. 30–35].
The correspondence to the alternatives of claim 20 is direct under their ordinary technical meanings. Loss of Signal (LOS) is a failure to receive the expected optical signal. Signal Failure–Bit Error Rate (SF-BER) identifies an optical signal whose errors exceed the failure threshold and therefore does not comprise reliably readable data. Loss of Frame (LOF) identifies that the received optical data cannot be framed as a complete valid signal and therefore corresponds to receiving an incomplete optical signal.
Smith expressly teaches that each condition generates an alarm and places the link in the DOWN state, providing objective, standard optical-network criteria for every recited alternative.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use Smith’s LOS, LOF, and SF-BER conditions to detect the optical consequences of the software or firmware failure supplied by Gorshe in Arham’s optical-switch/DU system. In the proposed combination, the first DU’s software-failure state causes the DU to cease or corrupt the expected optical status or traffic signal, thereby generating the failure condition communicated to the switching arrangement. Gorshe teaches that, upon a software or firmware failure, the working unit indicates failure and stops transmitting data on its working span. That behavior predictably produces Loss of Signal; a malfunction that corrupts or truncates the transmitted data predictably produces Signal Failure–Bit Error Rate or Loss of Frame. Smith’s standard receiver defects therefore provide objective mechanisms for converting the first-DU software-failure consequences into the alarm condition received by the optical switch, rather than introducing an unrelated alternative failure theory.
The modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Smith expressly teaches that LOS, LOF, and SF-BER generate alarms and place the link in the DOWN state; Gorshe expressly teaches that a software or firmware failure causes the working unit to indicate failure and discontinue traffic; and Arham expressly teaches automatic optical-path switching upon a failover event. Combining the known software-failure indication, known optical-defect monitoring, and known active/standby optical bypass switch would therefore have used each element according to its established function and would predictably have terminated the unusable first path and activated the second path.
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
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
/OMAR S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights