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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to 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 later invention.
Claim(s) 12-14, 17, 19-24, 27 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NTT-AT (NTT-AT, “Intelligent Optical switch Applications”, 2000) in view of Caird et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0260671 A1).
Regarding claim 12, NTT-AT teaches on page 7, Section 2(b) bypass switching in metro ring network where the metro ring comprises of L2 switches (e.g., Ethernet switches). NTT-AT teaches in the FIG. on page 7 that when a L2 switch fails, the intelligent optical switch performs a bypass to clear the fault. The difference between NTT-AT and the claimed invention is that NTT-AT does not teach G.8032 protection switch. Caird et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a ring network where G.8032 is applicable. Caird et al. teaches in FIG. 18 that when the topology of a ring has been changed, and in step 84 modifying ring blocks in the G.8032 ring. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Caird et al. with the system of NTT-AT because bypass can only clear node failure and cannot handle link failure which G.8032 can handle. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include G.8032 protection switching, as taught by Caird et al., in the system of NTT-AT.
Regarding claim 13, Caird et al. teaches in FIG. 3 link failure which can be handled by G.8032 protection switching and cannot be handled by optical bypass.
Regarding claim 14, Caird et al. teaches in paragraph [0042] that protection switching can be done within sub-50 ms. The Examiner notes that the claim language does not recite any structure difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Therefore, the feature is considered as an item in a wish list and does not carry patentable weight.
Regarding claim 17, Caird et al. teaches in FIG. 18, step 84 that ring block may have been modified and determining the topology change based on control frames.
Regarding claim 19, NTT-AT teaches on page 7 optical bypass.
Regarding claim 20-21, if the optical protection switching affects the ring protection link owner (NE 12A in FIG. 2 of Caird et al.), it destroys the ring block and ring block moving is required; Caird et al. teaches in paragraph [0035] that all FDBs in the G.8032 ring to be flushed.
Regarding claim 22, NTT-AT teaches on page 7 a ring of two fibers; however, it is obvious to apply the combination of NTT-AT and Caird et al. to a ring of a single fiber because Caird et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a single fiber ring.
Regarding claim 23, Caird et al. teaches in FIG. 3 link failure which can be handled by G.8032 protection switching and cannot be handled by optical bypass.
Regarding claim 24, Caird et al. teaches in paragraph [0042] that protection switching can be done within sub-50 ms. The Examiner notes that the claim language does not recite any structure difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Therefore, the feature is considered as an item in a wish list and does not carry patentable weight.
Regarding claim 27, Caird et al. teaches in FIG. 18, step 84 that ring block may have been modified and determining the topology change based on control frames.
Regarding claim 29, NTT-AT teaches on page 7 optical bypass which removes the two ports to the L2 switch.
Regarding claim 30-31, if the optical protection switching affects the ring protection link owner (NE 12A in FIG. 2 of Caird et al.), it destroys the ring block and ring block moving is required; Caird et al. teaches in paragraph [0035] that all FDBs in the G.8032 ring to be flushed.
Claim(s) 15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NTT-AT and Caird et al. as applied to claims 12-14, 17, 19-24, 27 and 29-31 above, and further in view of Shukla et al. (U.S. Patent 8,670,299 B1).
NTT-AT and Caird et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 12-14, 17, 19-24, 27 and 29-31. The difference between NTT-AT and Caird et al. and the claimed invention is that NTT-AT and Caird et al. do not teach utilizing Ethernet layer Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) to rediscover neighbors in the ring for the adjusting. Shukla et al. teaches in col. 2, lines 40-44 “with 802.1ag protocols, continuity check messages (CCMs) have traditionally been used to provide neighbor discovery by indicating to other L2 devices that a particular service instance is available on a source L2 device that sends the CCM.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Shukla et al. with the modified system of NTT-AT and Caird et al. because the approach allows the use of standard to discover neighbors. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ethernet layer OAM to discover neighbors, as taught by Shukla et al., in the modified system of NTT-AT and Caird et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18, 26 and 28 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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.
skl26 August 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights