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 .
Claims 1-10, 12-16 are pending for examination
This office action is FINAL
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) [ 07/09/2026] have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) [ 1-5, 10, 12-16 ] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [ Detwiler et al. (US Pub No. 20190174212), hereinafter "Detwiler", in view of Liu et al (US Pub No. 20120011413), hereinafter "Liu" ].
As per claim 1, Detwiler significantly teaches A forward error correction (FEC) code switching method, applied to an optical line terminal (OLT) in communication with optical network units (ONUs) (the OLT 102 can include a communications port that connects the OLT 102 to a PON and communicatively couples the OLT 102 to ONU 104 a, ONU 104 b, ONU 104 c, and ONU 104 d [Detwiler PP 0025]),
comprising: determining a target operational FEC code according to a quality of transmission channels between the OLT and the ONUs (the system can measure (or detect) the BER on a particular link, and select an appropriate choice for the FEC code [Detwiler PP 0031])
wherein a target service requirement of the target service requirements comprises high throughput FEC requirement and high margin FEC requirement (the OLT can select the FEC code length with the lowest number of parity bits required to obtain the target output error rate when the goal is to maximize payload increase ... if the goal is to obtain more error correction than required, while also increasing the payload, a FEC code length with a higher number of parity bytes than required to obtain the target error rate can be selected [Detwiler PP 0047] Maximize payload reads as high throughput requirement; more error correction reads as high margin requirement); and
notifying the ONUs of the target operational FEC code to enable the ONUs to switch a current operational FEC code to the target operational FEC code and decode user service data according to the target operational FEC code (For any changes in downstream FEC code, a Channel_Profile message can be broadcast in PLOAMd in the frame preceding the change [Detwiler PP 0036]).
Detwiler does not explicitly teach “and target service requirements of the ONUs”
However, Liu, in an analogous art, teaches and target service requirements of the ONUs (The present invention adaptively changes the capability and overhead of the FEC codes for system performance optimization by taking into account the receiver topology changes, varying channel conditions of multiple receivers, and application requirements [Liu PP 0007] Application requirements read as the target service requirements)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the OLT disclosed by Detwiler to incorporate Liu's teaching of selecting the FEC code based on the application requirements of the receivers, in order to match the FEC overhead to the services carried while maximizing overall system throughput (adaptively changes the capability and overhead of the FEC codes for system performance optimization by taking into account the receiver topology changes, varying channel conditions of multiple receivers, and application requirements [Liu PP 0007]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Detwiler's invention.
As per claim 2, Detwiler significantly teaches further comprising: sending FEC test data to an ONU of the ONUs (The response 108 can also specify a set of performance measures that are collected by the ONU 104 c [Detwiler PP 0028] Downstream data on which the ONU measures performance reads as the FEC test data);
receiving a bit error rate (BER) corresponding to the FEC test data and fed back by the ONU (The response 108 can specify a set of FEC code lengths that are supported by the ONU 104 c. The response 108 can also specify a set of performance measures that are collected by the ONU 104 c [Detwiler PP 0028] The performance measures fed back by the ONU read as the BER corresponding to the FEC test data); and
determining the quality of the transmission channels according to the BER (the system can measure (or detect) the BER on a particular link, and select an appropriate choice for the FEC code [Detwiler PP 0031]).
As per claim 3, Detwiler significantly teaches wherein determining the target operational FEC code according to the quality of the transmission channels between the OLT and the ONUs and the target service requirement of the ONUs comprises: determining a set of candidate FEC codes according to the quality of the transmission channels (A set of FEC code lengths supported by the ONU and performance measures collected by the ONU are received by the OLT from the ONU [Detwiler PP 0042] Supported code lengths read as the candidate set); and
determining the target operational FEC code according to the target service requirement and the set of candidate FEC codes (When more than one same FEC code length is supported by both the ONU and the OLT, the selection of the appropriate FEC code length can be based on factors such as the performance measures collected by the ONU, the performance measures collected by the OLT, a target performance measure [Detwiler PP 0046] Selection by target performance measure reads as selection by the service requirement).
As per claim 4, Detwiler significantly teaches before sending the FEC test data to the ONU, further comprising: in response to detecting that the ONU completes activation and registration, broadcasting a FEC test message to the ONU (assume that the ONU 104 c has not completed an activation cycle with the OLT 102 ... the OLT 102 and ONU 104 c can exchange a series of messages (e.g., PLOAM) that will configure the ONU 104 c to communicate with the OLT 102 [Detwiler PP 0026] The FEC configuration message broadcast upon activation reads as the FEC test message).
As per claim 5, Detwiler significantly teaches a FEC code switching method, applied to an ONU (ONU 104 a, ONU 104 b, ONU 104 c, and ONU 104 d [Detwiler PP 0025]), comprising: receiving a notification of a target operational FEC code from an OLT in communication with the ONU (the OLT transmitting an OMCI command over and OMCI channel instructing the ONU to utilize the appropriate FEC code [Detwiler PP 0055]),
wherein the target operational FEC code is determined by the OLT according to a quality of a transmission channel between the OLT and the ONU (the system can measure (or detect) the BER on a particular link, and select an appropriate choice for the FEC code [Detwiler PP 0031]),
and the target service requirement comprises high throughput FEC requirement and high margin FEC requirement (the goal is to maximize payload increase ... the goal is to obtain more error correction than required [Detwiler PP 0047] Maximize payload reads as high throughput; more error correction reads as high margin);
switching a current operational FEC code to the target operational FEC code (instructing the ONU to utilize the appropriate FEC code [Detwiler PP 0055]); and
decoding user service data according to the target operational FEC code (the OLT configures the ONU to utilize the appropriate FEC code length [Detwiler PP 0055]).
Detwiler does not explicitly teach “and a target service requirement of the ONU”
However, Liu, in an analogous art, teaches and a target service requirement of the ONU (The threshold Pt is determined by the requirements of the application [Liu PP 0029] Requirements of the application read as the target service requirement)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the OLT disclosed by Detwiler to incorporate Liu's teaching of selecting the FEC code based on the application requirements of the receivers, in order to match the FEC overhead to the services carried while maximizing overall system throughput (adaptively changes the capability and overhead of the FEC codes for system performance optimization by taking into account the receiver topology changes, varying channel conditions of multiple receivers, and application requirements [Liu PP 0007]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Detwiler's invention.
As per claim 10, Detwiler significantly teaches an optical line terminal (OLT), comprising a memory and at least one processor (the OLT 102 includes one or more data processing apparatus, one or more memory devices, and one or more communications interfaces [Detwiler PP 0025]);
wherein the memory is configured to store at least one program; wherein the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform: determining a target operational FEC code according to a quality of transmission channels between the OLT and optical network units (ONUs) and target service requirements of the ONUs, wherein the ONUs are communicatively connected with the OLT (the system can measure (or detect) the BER on a particular link, and select an appropriate choice for the FEC code [Detwiler PP 0031]),
and notifying the ONUs of the target operational FEC code to enable the ONUs to switch a current operational FEC code to the target operational FEC code and decode the user service data according to the target operational FEC code (a Channel_Profile message can be broadcast in PLOAMd in the frame preceding the change [Detwiler PP 0036]).
Detwiler does not explicitly teach “and the target service requirement comprises high throughput FEC requirement and high margin FEC requirement;”
However, Liu, in an analogous art, teaches and the target service requirement comprises high throughput FEC requirement and high margin FEC requirement (The present invention adaptively changes the capability and overhead of the FEC codes for system performance optimization by taking into account the receiver topology changes, varying channel conditions of multiple receivers, and application requirements [Liu PP 0007] Application requirements read as the target service requirement comprising high throughput and high margin);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the OLT disclosed by Detwiler to incorporate Liu's teaching of selecting the FEC code based on the application requirements of the receivers, in order to match the FEC overhead to the services carried while maximizing overall system throughput (adaptively changes the capability and overhead of the FEC codes for system performance optimization by taking into account the receiver topology changes, varying channel conditions of multiple receivers, and application requirements [Liu PP 0007]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Detwiler's invention.
As per claim 12, Detwiler significantly teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform: sending FEC test data to an ONU of the ONUs (The response 108 can also specify a set of performance measures that are collected by the ONU 104 c [Detwiler PP 0028] Downstream data on which the ONU measures performance reads as the FEC test data);
receiving a bit error rate (BER) corresponding to the FEC test data and fed back by the ONU (The response 108 can specify a set of FEC code lengths that are supported by the ONU 104 c. The response 108 can also specify a set of performance measures that are collected by the ONU 104 c [Detwiler PP 0028] The performance measures fed back by the ONU read as the BER corresponding to the FEC test data); and
determining the quality of the transmission channels according to the BER (the system can measure (or detect) the BER on a particular link, and select an appropriate choice for the FEC code [Detwiler PP 0031]).
As per claim 13, Detwiler significantly teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the target operational FEC code by: determining a set of candidate FEC codes according to the quality of the transmission channels (A set of FEC code lengths supported by the ONU and performance measures collected by the ONU are received by the OLT from the ONU [Detwiler PP 0042] Supported code lengths read as the candidate set); and
determining the target operational FEC code according to the target service requirement and the set of candidate FEC codes (When more than one same FEC code length is supported by both the ONU and the OLT, the selection of the appropriate FEC code length can be based on factors such as the performance measures collected by the ONU, the performance measures collected by the OLT, a target performance measure [Detwiler PP 0046] Selection by target performance measure reads as selection by the service requirement).
As per claim 14, Detwiler significantly teaches wherein before sending the FEC test data to the ONU, the at least one processor is further configured to perform: in response to detecting that the ONU completes activation and registration, broadcasting a FEC test message to the ONU (assume that the ONU 104 c has not completed an activation cycle with the OLT 102 ... the OLT 102 and ONU 104 c can exchange a series of messages (e.g., PLOAM) that will configure the ONU 104 c to communicate with the OLT 102 [Detwiler PP 0026] The FEC configuration message broadcast upon activation reads as the FEC test message).
As per claim 15, Detwiler significantly teaches wherein the ONUs comprise: one or more ONUs that have completed activation and registration and are operating using the current operational FEC code (The OLT 102 receives the highest acceptable rate code from each of the ONUs 104 , and can select the lowest rate (highest parity) code that is reported by any of the ONUs 104 . [Detwiler PP 0036] Reporting ONUs read as registered and operating ONUs);
Detwiler does not explicitly teach “and one or more ONUs that have not completed activation and registration.”
However, Liu, in an analogous art, teaches and one or more ONUs that have not completed activation and registration (receivers may join or leave the multicast group [Liu PP 0004] Joining receivers read as ONUs that have not completed activation and registration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the OLT disclosed by Detwiler to incorporate Liu's teaching of selecting the FEC code based on the application requirements of the receivers, in order to match the FEC overhead to the services carried while maximizing overall system throughput (adaptively changes the capability and overhead of the FEC codes for system performance optimization by taking into account the receiver topology changes, varying channel conditions of multiple receivers, and application requirements [Liu PP 0007]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Detwiler's invention.
As per claim 16, Detwiler significantly teaches before sending the FEC test data to the ONU, further comprising: broadcasting a FEC test message to the ONU (A message is broadcast over an optical network by an OLT ... the message broadcast by the OLT can be a downstream PLOAM message [Detwiler PP 0039] The broadcast message during activation reads as the FEC test message),
wherein the ONU is: an ONU that has completed activation and registration and is operating using the current operational FEC code (The OLT 102 receives the highest acceptable rate code from each of the ONUs 104 , and can select the lowest rate (highest parity) code that is reported by any of the ONUs 104 . [Detwiler PP 0036] Reporting ONUs read as registered and operating ONUs);
Detwiler does not explicitly teach “or an ONU that has not completed activation and registration.”
However, Liu, in an analogous art, teaches or an ONU that has not completed activation and registration (receivers may join or leave the multicast group [Liu PP 0004] Joining receivers read as ONUs that have not completed activation and registration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the OLT disclosed by Detwiler to incorporate Liu's teaching of selecting the FEC code based on the application requirements of the receivers, in order to match the FEC overhead to the services carried while maximizing overall system throughput (adaptively changes the capability and overhead of the FEC codes for system performance optimization by taking into account the receiver topology changes, varying channel conditions of multiple receivers, and application requirements [Liu PP 0007]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Detwiler's invention.
Claim(s) [ 6-9 ] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [ Detwiler, in view of Liu, in further view of Reial et al (US Pub No. 20090003301), hereinafter "Reial" ].
As per claim 6, Detwiler significantly teaches further comprising: receiving FEC test data from the OLT (the OLT 102 and ONU 104 c can exchange a series of messages (e.g., PLOAM) that will configure the ONU 104 c to communicate with the OLT 102 [Detwiler PP 0026] The broadcast FEC configuration message reads as the FEC test data);
Detwiler in view of Liu do not explicitly teach “and decoding the FEC test data to obtain the current operational FEC code.”
However, Reial, in an analogous art, teaches and decoding the FEC test data to obtain the current operational FEC code (The receiver 10 selects a transport format from the candidate set (block 108), and encodes the received transmission according to the selected transport format (block 110). The receiver can also generates a quality metric associated with the selected transport format (block 113), such as a CRC check, bit error rate (BER), or the like. [Reial PP 0033] Trial-decoding received data to identify the correct format reads as decoding to obtain the current operational FEC code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ONU of Detwiler and Liu to incorporate Reial's teaching of trial-decoding received data using each of a set of candidate formats in a sequence that prioritizes the most recently used format first, in order to allow an ONU that does not yet know the currently used FEC code to determine it (the receiver 10 includes one or more most recently used formats in the candidate set [Reial PP 0032]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Detwiler and Liu's invention.
As per claim 7, Detwiler significantly teaches further comprising: determining a bit error rate (BER) corresponding to the FEC test data (The OLT 102 can use information provided by the graph 200 to select an appropriate FEC code for the ONU 104 c. For example, given the performance measures (e.g., BER) measured by the ONU 104 c and the FEC code lengths supported by the ONU 104 c, the OLT 102 can select the code length that will provide a target (e.g., desired) output block error rate [Detwiler PP 0031] The BER measured by the ONU reads as the BER corresponding to the FEC test data); and
feeding back the BER to the OLT to enable the OLT to determine the quality of the transmission channel between the OLT and the ONU according to the BER (the ONU 104 c can generate a response 108 to the FEC Capabilities Message 106 , and transmit the response to the OLT 102 . The response 108 can specify a set of FEC code lengths that are supported by the ONU 104 c. The response 108 can also specify a set of performance measures that are collected by the ONU 104 c. [Detwiler PP 0028] The performance measures transmitted from the ONU to the OLT read as the BER fed back to the OLT)
As per claim 8, Detwiler in view of Liu do not explicitly teach “wherein decoding the FEC test data to obtain the current operational FEC code comprises: decoding the FEC test data using each of FEC codes in a pre-configured sequence to obtain the current operational FEC code.”
However, Reial, in an analogous art, teaches wherein decoding the FEC test data to obtain the current operational FEC code comprises: decoding the FEC test data using each of FEC codes in a pre-configured sequence to obtain the current operational FEC code (the receiver 10 reduces the blind decoding task by determining a candidate set of transport formats ... the receiver 10 includes one or more most recently used formats in the candidate set [Reial PP 0032] Decoding using each candidate format in a set reads as decoding using each FEC code in a pre-configured sequence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ONU of Detwiler and Liu to incorporate Reial's teaching of trial-decoding received data using each of a set of candidate formats in a sequence that prioritizes the most recently used format first, in order to allow an ONU that does not yet know the currently used FEC code to determine it (the receiver 10 includes one or more most recently used formats in the candidate set [Reial PP 0032]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Detwiler and Liu's invention.
As per claim 9, Detwiler in view of Liu do not explicitly teach “wherein the pre-configured sequence of FEC codes comprises one of: sorting the FEC codes in descending order of encoding gains of the FEC codes; or sorting a previously used FEC code first, followed by other FEC codes than the previously used FEC code.”
However, Reial, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the pre-configured sequence of FEC codes comprises one of: sorting the FEC codes in descending order of encoding gains of the FEC codes; or sorting a previously used FEC code first, followed by other FEC codes than the previously used FEC code (the receiver 10 includes one or more most recently used formats in the candidate set and omits one or more not recently used formats from the candidate set [Reial PP 0032] Most recently used format first reads as the previously used code first).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ONU of Detwiler and Liu to incorporate Reial's teaching of trial-decoding received data using each of a set of candidate formats in a sequence that prioritizes the most recently used format first, in order to allow an ONU that does not yet know the currently used FEC code to determine it (the receiver 10 includes one or more most recently used formats in the candidate set [Reial PP 0032]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Detwiler and Liu's invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEM FUAD ALHWAMDEH whose telephone number is (571)272-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
/KAREEM FUAD ALHWAMDEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights