DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (US Pub 20220052762) in view of Su 2 et al (US Pub 20210083774).
Regarding claim 1. Su discloses a mapping method for content to be mapped, comprising:
determining a carrying position from a payload area of an Optical Data Unit (ODU) frame, and determining a sub-carrying unit located at the carrying position (Fig 5A, where a transmitting end determines a carrying position (e.g. for OPU payload) from a payload area of an Optical Data Unit (ODU) frame (as shown in Figure c) and determines a sub-carrying unit (Payload block) located at the carrying position (e.g. for OPU payload));
sequentially extracting, from a cell stream, content to be mapped of all cells (Fig 5A, where the transmitting end sequentially extracts, from a cell/unit stream/flow, content (e.g. OPU payload) to be mapped of all cells/units (as shown in Figure a and Figure b)); and
sequentially mapping the extracted content to be mapped into the sub-carrying unit (Fig 5A, where the transmitting end sequentially maps the extracted content (e.g. OPU payload) to be mapped into the sub-carrying unit (Payload block) (as shown in Figure c)).
Su fails to explicitly disclose the ODU frame being an Optical Transport Network (OTN) frame.
However, Su 2 discloses
an ODU frame being an Optical Transport Network (OTN) frame (para [76] where an ODU frame is an Optical Transport Network (OTN) frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the ODU frame as described in Su, with the teachings of the ODU frame end as described in Su 2. The motivation being is that as shown an ODU frame is an Optical Transport Network (OTN) frame and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the ODU frame as described in Su and better show and illustrate that the ODU frame is an Optical Transport Network (OTN) frame i.e. because the ODU frame optimally encapsulates client signals and the OTN frame optimally encapsulates the ODU frame for transmission over an optical transport network defined by ITUT G.709 and where such optical transport network provides optimum bandwidth, efficiency, reliability, monitoring and scalability and which combination is being made because both systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. ODU frames) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known ODU frame into other similar ODU frame, namely, for better clarifying its operation/ configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 2. Su as modified by Su 2 also discloses the mapping method, further comprising: mapping specific content into the sub-carrying unit when determining that mapping content of all the cells sequentially extracted from the cell stream is insufficient, and indicating the sub-carrying unit mapped with the specific content as an idle sub-carrying unit (Su Fig 5A, where the transmitting end maps specific content into the sub-carrying unit (Payload block) when determining that mapping content of all the cells/units sequentially extracted from the cell/unit stream/flow is sufficient, and where it is known that the transmitting end also maps another specific content into the sub-carrying unit (Payload block) when determining that mapping content of all the cells/units sequentially extracted from the cell/unit stream/flow is insufficient (see Su 3 et al (US Pub 20220337925) para [147]), and where the sub-carrying unit (Payload block) mapped with the specific content is indicated as an idle sub-carrying unit (Payload block) (see Su 3 et al (US Pub 20220337925) para [147])).
Regarding claim 3. Su as modified by Su 2 also discloses the mapping method, wherein determining the carrying position from the payload area of the OTN frame comprises: dividing the carrying position from the payload area of one OTN frame (Su Fig 5A, where the transmitting end divides the carrying position (e.g. for OPU payload) from the payload area of one OTN (ODU) frame (as shown in Figure c) (e.g. for OPU payload as shown in Figure a and for OPU payload as shown in Figure b)).
Regarding claim 4. Su as modified by Su 2 also discloses the mapping method, wherein determining the carrying position from the payload area of the OTN frame comprises: dividing the sub-carrying unit when determining that the size of the payload area of the OTN frame is not an integer multiple of the size of the sub-carrying unit, and then discarding a fragmented payload area obtained after the carrying position is divided from the payload area of the OTN frame (Su Fig 5A, where the transmitting end is known to divide the sub-carrying unit (Payload block) when determining that the size of the payload area of the OTN (ODU) frame (as shown in Figure c) is not an integer multiple of the size of the sub-carrying unit (Payload block) (see Xiang et al (US Pub 20210084383) Fig 4B, para [94]), and then discards (e.g. from data transmission) a fragmented payload area (e.g. 38 bits) obtained after the carrying position (e.g. for OPU payload) is divided from the payload area of the OTN (ODU) frame (as shown in Figure c) (see Xiang et al (US Pub 20210084383) Fig 4B, para [94])).
Regarding claim 5. Su as modified by Su 2 also discloses the mapping method, wherein determining the carrying position from the payload area of the OTN frame comprises: using payload areas of a plurality of OTN frames as an entirety to be divided, and dividing the carrying position from the entirety to be divided (Su Fig 5A, Fig 5B, where the transmitting end uses payload areas of a plurality of OTN (ODN) frames (as shown in Fig 5A and Fig 5B) as an entirety to be divided, and divides the carrying position (e.g. for OPU payload) from the entirety to be divided (e.g. for OPU payload as shown in Figure a and for OPU payload as shown in Figure b)).
Regarding claim 6. Su as modified by Su 2 also discloses the mapping method, wherein determining the carrying position from the payload area of the OTN frame comprises: indicating a sequence relationship between each frame in the plurality of OTN frames by using content of an overhead field OPU OH of an Overhead Processing Unit (OPU) (Su Fig 5A, Fig 5B, where the transmitting end determines the carrying position (e.g. for OPU payload) from the payload area of the OTN (ODU) frame (as shown in Figure c) and is known to comprise an indication of a sequence relationship between each frame in the plurality of OTN (ODU) frames (e.g. a multiframe) by using content of an overhead field OPU OH of an Overhead Processing Unit (OPU) (see Su 4 (US Pub 20240297728) paras [85][87])).
Regarding claim 7. Su as modified by Su 2 also discloses the mapping method, wherein determining the carrying position from the payload area of the OTN frame comprises: indicating an initial position of the first one among the sub-carrying units in each OTN frame in the payload area of the OTN frame by using content of an overhead field OPU OH of an OPU (Su Fig 5A, Fig 5B, where the transmitting end determines the carrying position (e.g. for OPU payload) from the payload area of the OTN (ODU) frame (as shown in Figure c) and indicates an initial position/location of the first one among the sub-carrying units (Payload blocks) in each OTN (ODU) frame in the payload area of the OTN (ODU) frame by using content of an overhead field OPU OH of an OPU (paras [148][149])).
Regarding claim 8. Su as modified by Su 2 also discloses the mapping method, wherein the content to be mapped comprises at least one of the following: an overall bit value of all code blocks in the cell, all byte content obtained after synchronization headers of all the code blocks in all the cells are deleted, or valid cell byte content obtained after the synchronization headers, S block control words, T block control words of all the code blocks in all the cells are deleted (Su Fig 5A, where the content (e.g. OPU payload) to be mapped into the sub-carrying unit (Payload block) (as shown in Figure c) comprises valid cell/unit byte content (i.e. from OPU payload of Figure a and Figure b) which are obtained after synchronization headers, S block control words, T block control words (i.e. from FAS, OTUk OH, FEC of Figure a and Figure b)) of all code blocks in all the cells/units are deleted (i.e. because FAS, OTUk OH, FEC of Figure a and Figure b is not mapped into Figure c)).
Regarding claim 10. Su as modified by Su 2 also discloses the mapping method, wherein in the process of mapping the specific content into the sub-carrying unit when determining that the mapping content of all the cells sequentially extracted from the cell stream is insufficient, and indicating the sub-carrying unit mapped with the specific content as the idle sub-carrying unit, the method further comprises: mapping content of an idle code block into the sub-carrying unit as the specific content, wherein the specific content is a flag for the idle sub-carrying unit (Su Fig 5A, where the transmitting end is known to map content (0 or 1) of an idle code block into the sub-carrying unit (payload block) as the specific content (see Su 3 et al (US Pub 20220337925) para [147]), and where the specific content is a flag (indicator) for the idle sub-carrying unit (Payload block) (see Su 3 et al (US Pub 20220337925) para [147])).
Regarding claim 12. Claim 12 is similar to claim 1, therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, since the transmitting end is performing the steps of determining/dividing, extracting and mapping, the transmitting end comprises a determining/division module, an extraction module and a mapping module.
Regarding claim 13. Su as modified by Su 2 also discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program is configured to perform, when being executed by an processor, the method as claimed in claim 1 (Su Fig 5A, para [228] where a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has a computer program stored therein and where the computer program is configured to perform, when being executed by an processor, the method as claimed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 14. Claim 14 is similar to claim 1, therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, paras [227][228] teaches an electronic apparatus comprises a memory and a processor, where the memory stores a computer program and where the processor executes the computer program.
Regarding claim 15. Claim 15 is similar to claim 2, therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 16. Claim 16 is similar to claim 3, therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 17. Claim 17 is similar to claim 4, therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 18. Claim 18 is similar to claim 5, therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 19. Claim 19 is similar to claim 6, therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20. Claim 20 is similar to claim 8, therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant disclosure is the following:
Su et al (US Pub 20230044113) and more specifically Fig 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 26
Prosecution Insights