Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not
identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the
prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention
pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
1. Claims 1-3, & 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Mizutani et al (US 20100067901 A1), hereinafter Mizutani, in view of Naohiro et al (JP 2014171079 A), hereinafter Naohiro.
2. Regarding Claims 1 & 6:
Mizutani teaches a monitoring system and method, ([0006]: In a PON system, multiple Optical Network Units(hereinafter referred to as ONUs) installed in user sites and an Optical Line Terminator(hereinafter referred to as an OLT) installed in a communication carrier station are connected via optical fibers). Mizutani teaches monitoring a path through which light output from a plurality of devices flows, ([0070]: The control information is composed of an uplink bandwidth allocation information group (hereinafter called a DBA table) 1210 periodically created and updated by DBA and an uplink received light monitor information group (hereinafter called an uplink received light monitor information table) 1220 created and updated according to the status of signals received from each ONU). Mizutani further teaches, ([0071]: On the other hand, the uplink received light monitor information table 1220 records an ONU-ID 1221 that identifies the ONU 20 to which the Alloc-ID 1211 is assigned and, for each ONU 20, the received-signal intensity that is estimated when the next GEM packet is received. This intensity is estimated by referring to the initialization value or the intensity of the received signal obtained from the immediately preceding normal uplink GEM packet (optical signal). In addition, the uplink received light monitor information table 1220 also includes a flag 1223 that indicates the auxiliary information such as the received-signal status (normal or abnormal) of each Alloc-ID 1211 or each ONU-ID 1221 or the effectiveness of the entry). Mizutani goes on to teach, ([Fig. 1]: Shows a plurality of ONUs connected to a light path being monitored).
at least one processor adapted to function as: a determination unit that determines whether non-compliant light that does not satisfy a predetermined criterion is included in the light flowing through the path, ([0011]: To solve the above problems, a passive optical network system of the present invention, in which a parent station and a plurality of child stations are connected via an optical fiber network comprising an optical splitter and a plurality of optical fibers, comprises a reception circuit that receives an optical signal from each of the plurality of child stations using a threshold used to identify if the optical signal is 0 or 1; a bandwidth setting unit that determines a time at which each of the plurality of child stations sends an optical signal; a storage unit that stores the thresholds and intensities of optical signals received from the plurality of child stations; and a control unit that sets a threshold, stored corresponding to the time, in the reception circuit to control a reception of an optical signal, and further comprises a function that compares an intensity of a signal received from each of the plurality of child stations at an optical signal reception time with information stored in the storage unit to detect and determine a fault in the child station or in the optical fiber connected to the child station). Mizutani goes on to teach, ([0014]: The parent station comprises a reception circuit that receives an optical signal from each of the plurality of child stations using a threshold used to identify if the optical signal is 0 or 1; a bandwidth setting unit that determines a time at which each of the plurality of child stations sends an optical signal; a storage unit that stores the thresholds and intensities of optical signals received from the plurality of child stations; and a control unit that sets a threshold, stored corresponding to the time, in the reception circuit to control a reception of an optical signal).
Mizutani does not teach a restriction unit that controls that the light does not flow through the path when the non-compliant light is included in the light.
However, Naohiro teaches an optical communication system and method of control, ([Abstract]: PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To restore an optical system to a normal state in an automatic and quick manner from a communication failure due to always emitting light while restraining influence on an existing system). Naohiro further teaches, ([0060]: When control data instructing to turn off the optical switch 22-1 is transmitted from the OLT device 10, the switch switching unit 232 turns off the optical switch 22-1 according to the control data (step S202). . As described above, all the optical switches are normally turned on. When the optical switch 22-1 is turned off, the ONU device 30-1 corresponding to the optical switch 22-1 is disconnected from the optical line). Naohiro goes on to teach, ([0113]: When the communication failure occurs in the optical communication system, the control unit causes the optical switch to block the optical module and the optical coupler, and determines whether or not the communication failure has been eliminated).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mizutani with Naohiro to include a restriction unit that controls that the light does not flow through the path when the non-compliant light is included in the light, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Mizutani with Naohiro, since such a configuration keeps a faulty ONU from blinding the OLT receiver for every other subscriber on the same fiber split, prevents unplanned or mistimed optical bursts from corrupting Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) scheduling, reduces labor-intensive manual troubleshooting by locally containing bad signals at the source, and lowers overall network error rates and maintains high data throughput for compliant nodes.
3. Regarding Claim 2:
Mizutani teaches the determination unit specifies the device that outputs the non-compliant light on the basis of an intensity of the light, ([0011]: To solve the above problems, a passive optical network system of the present invention, in which a parent station and a plurality of child stations are connected via an optical fiber network comprising an optical splitter and a plurality of optical fibers, comprises a reception circuit that receives an optical signal from each of the plurality of child stations using a threshold used to identify if the optical signal is 0 or 1; a bandwidth setting unit that determines a time at which each of the plurality of child stations sends an optical signal; a storage unit that stores the thresholds and intensities of optical signals received from the plurality of child stations; and a control unit that sets a threshold, stored corresponding to the time, in the reception circuit to control a reception of an optical signal, and further comprises a function that compares an intensity of a signal received from each of the plurality of child stations at an optical signal reception time with information stored in the storage unit to detect and determine a fault in the child station or in the optical fiber connected to the child station).
Mizutani does not teach the restriction unit controls that light from some of the plurality of devices does not flow and light from other devices flows, when the control is performed that the light from some of the devices does not flow and the light from the other devices flows.
However, Naohiro teaches, ([0081]: As described above, according to the present embodiment, when a communication failure occurs, the optical communication system 1 determines whether or not the communication failure has been resolved while sequentially switching the optical switch that shuts off the corresponding ONU device and the optical coupler 21. And a control means for maintaining the OFF state of the optical switch that was shut off when it was determined that the communication failure was resolved). Naohiro further teaches, ([0085]: Further, optical switches 22-1 to 22- (N-1) are respectively connected to the optical fiber cables 24-1 to 24- (N-1) corresponding to the plurality of ONU apparatuses 30-1 to 30- (N-1). Therefore, each ONU device can be individually disconnected from the optical line).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mizutani with Naohiro to include the restriction unit controls that light from some of the plurality of devices does not flow and light from other devices flows, when the control is performed that the light from some of the devices does not flow and the light from the other devices flows, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Mizutani with Naohiro, since such a configuration can prevent multiple ONUs from sending data at the same time on a shared fiber, lower optical beat noise and receiver saturation at the OLT, block a broken or misconfigured device that constantly leaks light and jams the line. In addition, such a configuration can implement precise time-slot allocation (TDMA) so each ONU talks in its turn, direct traffic dynamically based on real-time user data demand, and assist in managing active/inactive states for optimized network performance.
4. Regarding Claim 3:
Mizutani does not teach the restriction unit individually outputs a restriction instruction of output of the light or a restriction release instruction of output of the light to a device subject to determination of the non-compliant light by the determination unit among the plurality of devices.
However, Naohiro teaches, ([Fig. 7]: Shows a flowchart with the diagnosis operation, including the restriction and restriction release instruction subject to determination of non-compliant light). Naohiro further teaches, ([0073]: the control unit 233 outputs, to the switch switching unit 232, control data instructing to turn off the optical switch 22-Y corresponding to the ONU device 30-Y specified by the variable Y. As described above, since the initial value of the variable Y is 1, the control unit 233 outputs control data instructing to turn off the optical switch 22-1. The switch switching unit 232 turns off the optical switch 22-1 according to the control data (step S303). As described above, all the optical switches are normally turned on. When the optical switch 22-1 is turned off, the ONU device 30-1 corresponding to the optical switch 22-1 is disconnected from the optical line). Naohiro goes on to teach, ([0075]: When the link with the OLT device 10 cannot be established (step S304: No), the control unit 233 outputs control data instructing to turn on the optical switch 22-1 to the switch switching unit 232. The switch switching unit 232 turns on the optical switch 22-1 according to the control data (step S305). When the optical switch 22-1 is turned on, the ONU device 30-1 is again connected to the optical line). See figures 1 & 5.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mizutani with Naohiro to include the restriction unit individually outputs a restriction instruction of output of the light or a restriction release instruction of output of the light to a device subject to determination of the non-compliant light by the determination unit among the plurality of devices, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Mizutani with Naohiro, since such a configuration can pinpoint and silence only the specific non-compliant device causing upstream interference or continuous-mode failures, prevent unnecessary downtime or broadcast disruptions for other compliant ONUs sharing the same passive optical splitter, restore communication dynamically via a restriction release instruction the moment a flagged device is repaired or verified compliant, avoiding manual resets, and protect the optical line terminal (OLT) receiver from saturation or framing lock loss caused by unplanned optical power bursts.
5. Regarding Claim 5:
Mizutani does not teach the at least one processor adapted to further function as a blocking unit configured to be switchable between passage and blocking of the light is provided on the path, wherein the restriction unit outputs an instruction to block the light or an instruction to pass the light to the blocking unit corresponding to a device subject to determination of the non-compliant light by the determination unit among the plurality of devices.
However, Naohiro teaches this.
See Claim 3.
6. Regarding Claim 7:
Mizutani does not teach a plurality of devices that is connected to the path and restricts output of the light on the basis of the restriction instruction.
However, Naohiro teaches this, See figures 1 & 5.
See Claim 3.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Mizutani et al (US 20100067901 A1), hereinafter Mizutani, in view of Naohiro et al (JP 2014171079 A), hereinafter Naohiro, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Chang et al (WO 2015075544 A1), hereinafter Chang.
8. Regarding Claim 4:
Mizutani as modified by Naohiro teaches the restriction unit controls that the light from the device that outputs non- compliant light among the plurality of devices does not flow and the determination unit specifies a device that outputs non-compliant light on the basis of an intensity.
See Claims 1 & 2.
Mizutani as modified by Naohiro does not teach the at least one processor adapted to further function as a modulation instruction unit that outputs a modulation instruction to modulate the light in respective different patterns to the plurality of devices, the determination unit specifies a device that outputs non-compliant light on the basis of each of signal components of each of patterns separated from the light.
However, Chang teaches, ([P. 2, Lines 22-31, & P. 3, Lines 1-5]: According to an aspect of the invention, there is disclosed a method, in an OLT in a passive optical network, of identifying a long-shining rogue ONU, the method including the steps of: A. allocating a specific radio frequency signal at a different frequency to each of ONUs in the passive optical network; and B. when the long-shining rogue ONU is detected in the passive optical network, which transmits noise or a random signal so that uplink signals of normal ONUs can not be received normally: bl . broadcasting a control message to each of the ONUs, wherein the control message instructs each of the ONUs to transmit the specific radio frequency signal in the uplink; b2. receiving uplink signals in the uplink; b3. recovering the specific radio frequency signals transmitted by the normal ONUs from the uplink signals; and b4. identifying an absent specific radio frequency signal according to the recovered specific radio frequency signals, wherein an ONU corresponding to the absent specific radio frequency signal is the long-shming rogue ONU). Chang further teaches, ([P. 3, Lines 10-8]: Particularly the uplink signals include the noise or the random signal transmitted by the long-shining rogue ONU and the specific radio frequency signals transmitted by the normal ONUs).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mizutani with Naohiro and Chang to include the at least one processor adapted to further function as a modulation instruction unit that outputs a modulation instruction to modulate the light in respective different patterns to the plurality of devices, the determination unit specifies a device that outputs non-compliant light on the basis of each of signal components of each of patterns separated from the light, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Mizutani with Naohiro and Chang, since (Chang: [P. 1, Lines 16-24]: Among all kinds of rogue behaviors, the long-shining rogue is the most troublesome. A long-shining rogue ONU always keeps its laser in an operating state and transmits a random signal, an idle signal or other unexpected signals all the time. As illustrated in Fig. l , the long-shining rogue ONU occupies upload time slots allocated to other normal ONUs and thus results in crashing with other uplink signals. Therefore the long-shining rogue ONU can cause all the other well-operating ONUs to fail to transmit the uplink signals and thus may impose a serious impact on the operation of the network). In addition, (Chang: [P. 5, Lines 7-17]: The invention is advantageous in that firstly a long-shining rogue ONU can be identified rapidly even if the long-shining rogue ONU can not turn off its own optical transmitter; secondly there is a low hardware cost because no extra element is required in the ONU and only an additional decoder is required in the OLT, thus saving an unnecessary hardware overhead; thirdly there is a low operation and maintenance cost because this solution can identify remotely and automatically a long-shining rogue ONU and thus greatly lower the operation and maintenance cost; and fourthly this solution can identify a long-shining rogue ONU in operation and thus will not turn off the optical transmitter of the normally operating ONU as compared with the prior art).
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Mizutani et al (US 20100067901 A1), hereinafter Mizutani, in view of Naohiro et al (JP 2014171079 A), hereinafter Naohiro, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Sabella et al (US 5724167 A), hereinafter Sabella.
10. Regarding Claim 8:
Miyutani as modified by Naohiro teaches a path through which light output from a plurality of devices flows; the monitoring device that monitors the path. See Claim 1.
Miyutani as modified by Naohiro does not teach an optical cross connect device that routes and outputs the light flowing through the path to a port corresponding to a destination of the light.
However, Sabella teaches, ([Col. 1, Lines 35-49]: Compared to the high speeds at which data can be transported over optical links, e.g., 2.5 Gbits/s, the electronic path layer nodes operate at much slower rates, e.g., 155 Mbit/s. To meet the increased capacity needs of the transport network, bottlenecks caused mainly by use of electronic node switching and routing need to be eliminated. An object of the present invention therefore is to eliminate such bottlenecks and add a "transparent" optical layer to the path layer of existing telecommunications networks which uses optical cross-connect (OXC) nodes to perform high speed (e.g., 2.5 Gbits/s) dynamic routing and allocation of wavelength channels. Thus, a signal transmitted from a sending device may routed through several optical cross-connect nodes at the path level without ever passing through an electrical cross-connect node).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mizutani with Naohiro and Sabella to include an optical cross connect device that routes and outputs the light flowing through the path to a port corresponding to a destination of the light, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Mizutani with Naohiro and Sabella, since (Sabella: [Col. 1, Lines 50-64]: Significant benefits of this network structure are that optical cross-connect nodes route very large amounts of data through the transport network at the path layer without requiring opto-electronic conversion and the losses associated with such conversions. In addition, high speed transmission over the optical path layer is "transparent" to the network. Not only can traffic be routed through the optical cross-connect at rates much faster than through electronic cross-connects but also the optical layer transmission rate can be easily increased, e.g., from 2.5 Gbits/s to 10 Gbits/s, without impacting the optical or digital layers that make up the basic path layer. In this way, the network can be upgraded to a much higher traffic transport rate through the optical cross-connect nodes without modifying the cross-connect node structure).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
CN 101442376 A: Discloses an optical transmission system using a cross connect and WDM.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES W NAPIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/J.W.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights