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 statement (IDS) submitted on 2024-09-26 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 has 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed limitation within claims 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 is not clearly shown within the drawings, namely collecting "a second QoS current measurement" after a second spectral loading operation of the headend network element. Figure 5, block 212, instead states "Collect 2nd QoS baseline measurement after 2nd spectral loading." Although Figure 5, block 214, later refers to determining a difference
between a "2nd QoS current measurement" and a QoS baseline measurement, no drawing clearly shows the claimed collection of the second QoS current measurement after the second spectral loading operation. Figure 7 shows taking baseline carrier powers, performing an ith loading operation, taking current carrier powers, comparing the data sets, and returning a pass/fail result, but Figure 7 does not clearly show the claimed second QoS current measurement sequence following the second spectral loading operation recited in claims 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15. These feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites instructions to "send instructions to the headend network element to abort a second spectral loading operation for the transmission line segment and to execute an automatic gain control (AGC) cycle." Claim 10 later recites instructions to "collect a second QoS current measurement of the QoS data, after a second spectral loading operation of the headend network element."
As written, it is unclear whether the "second spectral loading operation" recited in claim 10 is the same second spectral loading operation that claim 1 requires the processor to instruct the headend network element to abort, or a different second spectral loading operation that occurs after the AGC cycle. If it is the same operation, then claim 10 requires collecting a second QoS current measurement after an operation that has been
aborted. If it is a different operation, then the claim introduces two separate "second" spectral loading operations without distinguishing them.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 10 are not reasonably certain, and claim 10 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites instructions to abort a second spectral loading operation and execute an AGC cycle. Claim 11 later recites instructions to "collect a second QoS current measurement of the QoS data, after a second spectral loading operation of the headend network element," and to determine that a numerical difference between the second QoS current measurement and the QoS baseline measurement is within the predetermined threshold.
As written, it is unclear whether the "second spectral loading operation" recited in claim 11 is the same operation that claim 1 requires the processor to instruct the headend network element to abort, or a different second spectral loading operation that is performed after the AGC cycle. The claim therefore makes it unclear whether the second QoS current measurement is collected after an aborted operation, after a deferred operation, after a restarted operation, or after a different loading operation.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are not reasonably certain, and claim 11 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 recites that the tail-end processor sends instructions to the headend network element "to abort a second spectral loading operation for the transmission line segment and to execute an automatic gain control (AGC) cycle." Claim 12 further recites that the headend processor is caused to "abort the second spectral loading operation for the transmission line segment," "execute the AGC cycle," and "perform a second spectral loading operation on the transmission line segment."
As written, it is unclear whether the headend processor performs the same second spectral loading operation that it previously aborted, or performs a different second spectral loading operation after the AGC cycle. If the same operation is intended, the claim requires the headend processor to both abort and perform the same second spectral loading operation. If a different operation is intended, the claim fails to distinguish between the aborted second spectral loading operation and the later performed second spectral loading operation. The ambiguity is not cured by the disclosure because the specification similarly states that the tail-end network element may send instructions to abort a second spectral loading operation and that the headend network element may then execute a second spectral loading operation, without defining whether "abort" means cancel, suspend, pause, defer, restart, or perform the same operation after the AGC cycle. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 12 are not reasonably certain, and claim 12 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 depends from claim 12. Claim 13 recites that the tail-end processor is caused to "collect a second QoS current measurement of the QoS data, after the second spectral loading operation of the headend network element." Claim 12, however, recites both that the headend processor aborts "the second spectral loading operation" and that the headend processor later performs "a second spectral loading operation."
As written, it is unclear whether the "second spectral loading operation" in claim 13 refers to the same operation that claim 12 requires to be aborted, the later operation that claim 12 requires to be performed after the AGC cycle, or another second spectral loading operation. If claim 13 refers to the aborted operation, the claim requires collection of a second QoS current measurement after an operation that was aborted. If claim 13 refers to the later performed operation, claim 13 depends on an unclear distinction between two operations both identified as a second spectral loading operation. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 13 are not reasonably certain, and claim 13 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 depends from claim 12. Claim 14 recites that the tail-end processor is caused to "collect a second QoS current measurement of the QoS data, after the second spectral loading operation by the headend network element." Claim 12, however, recites both that the headend processor aborts "the second spectral loading operation" and that the headend processor later performs "a second spectral loading operation."
As written, it is unclear whether the "second spectral loading operation" in claim 14 refers to the same operation that claim 12 requires to be aborted, the later operation that claim 12 requires to be performed after the AGC cycle, or another second spectral loading operation. If claim 14 refers to the aborted operation, the claim requires collection of a second QoS current measurement after an operation that was aborted. If claim 14 refers to the later performed operation, claim 14 depends on an unclear distinction between two operations both identified as a second spectral loading operation. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 14 are not reasonably certain, and claim 14 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 15,
Claim 15 depends from claim 12. Claim 15 recites that the tail-end processor is caused to "collect a second QoS current measurement of the QoS data, after the second spectral loading operation of the headend network element," determine that a numerical difference between the second QoS current measurement and the QoS baseline measurement is within the predetermined threshold, and then cause the headend processor to "perform a third spectral loading operation." Claim 12, however, recites both that the headend processor aborts "the second spectral loading operation" and that the headend processor later performs "a second spectral loading operation."
As written, it is unclear whether the second QoS current measurement of claim 15 is collected after the aborted second spectral loading operation, after the later performed second spectral loading operation, or after another second spectral loading operation. It is
also unclear what operation is the "third spectral loading operation" if the second spectral loading operation was aborted, or if the later performed second spectral loading operation is a different operation from the aborted one.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 15 are not reasonably certain, and claim 15 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 depends from claim 12 and recites that adjusting amplifier operating conditions comprises adjusting amplifier operating conditions to reduce Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) optical disturbances. Claim 16 therefore incorporates the limitations of claim 12 requiring the headend processor to abort "the second spectral loading operation" and later perform "a second spectral loading operation."
The additional SRS limitation in claim 16 does not clarify whether the headend processor performs the same second spectral loading operation that was aborted or a different second spectral loading operation after the AGC cycle. Claim 16 therefore retains the uncertainty of claim 12 as to whether the same operation is both aborted and performed, or whether two different operations are both identified as a second spectral loading operation.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 16 are not reasonably certain, and claim 16 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 depends from claim 12 and recites that "the AGC cycle is a second AGC cycle" and that "the QoS baseline measurement is a first QoS baseline measurement." Claim 17 further recites collecting a comparative QoS baseline measurement after a first AGC cycle and before the first QoS baseline measurement, comparing the comparative QoS baseline measurement and the first QoS baseline measurement, instructing the headend network element to run a third AGC cycle, and collecting a second QoS baseline measurement.
As written, it is unclear how the second QoS baseline measurement relates to the first QoS baseline measurement used in claim 12. Claim 12 requires comparing the QoS current measurement to the QoS baseline measurement, and claim 17 identifies that QoS baseline measurement as the first QoS baseline measurement. Claim 17 then requires instructing a third AGC cycle and collecting a second QoS baseline measurement, but does not state whether the second QoS baseline measurement replaces the first QoS baseline measurement for the comparison required by claim 12, is used only for a later comparison, or is collected without being used for any claimed comparison. It is also unclear how the recited third AGC cycle is sequenced relative to the second AGC cycle of claim 12, because claim 17 requires the third AGC cycle to be instructed based on baseline comparison logic that occurs before or around the first QoS baseline measurement, while claim 12 requires the second AGC cycle after the QoS current measurement is determined to be outside the predetermined threshold.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 17 are not reasonably certain, and claim 17 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 18,
Claim 18 depends from claim 12 and recites that the predetermined threshold is a predetermined range of values. Claim 18 therefore incorporates the limitations of claim 12 requiring the headend processor to abort "the second spectral loading operation" and later perform "a second spectral loading operation."
The additional limitation that the predetermined threshold is a predetermined range of values does not clarify whether the headend processor performs the same second spectral loading operation that was aborted or a different second spectral loading operation after the AGC cycle. Claim 18 therefore retains the uncertainty of claim 12 as to whether the same operation is both aborted and performed, or whether two different operations are both identified as a second spectral loading operation.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 18 are not reasonably certain, and claim 18 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 19,
Claim 19 depends from claim 12 and recites that the QoS data comprises one or more types of data comprising one or more of: transceiver performance margins, line-side band-level monitor photodiode values, downstream monitor photodiode values, ROADM optical power monitoring (OPM) trace data and metrics derived from the OPM trace data,
and transponder carrier Q-factor performance data. Claim 12 requires determining that "a numerical difference" between the QoS current measurement and the QoS baseline measurement is outside of "a predetermined threshold."
As written, where claim 19 allows the QoS data to include one or more types of data and/or OPM trace data with metrics derived from the OPM trace data, it is unclear how the single recited "numerical difference" in claim 12 is calculated and how the single recited "predetermined threshold" is applied. The claim does not make clear whether the numerical difference is a per-carrier difference, a per-data-type difference, an average difference, a maximum difference, a vector comparison, a pass/fail aggregation, or some other calculation. The specification describes multiple possible approaches, including respective thresholds for respective QoS data types, per-service pass/fail aggregation, detailed status messages, and priority ranking of different QoS data types. Claim 19 does not identify which approach is required. Additionally, claim 19 incorporates the claim-12 ambiguity concerning aborting the second spectral loading operation and later performing a second spectral loading operation.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 19 are not reasonably certain, and claim 19 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 recites that the headend processor is caused to "abort a second spectral loading operation for the transmission line segment," "execute an AGC cycle to adjust amplifier operating conditions," and "perform the second spectral loading operation on the
transmission line segment subsequent to executing the AGC cycle to adjust the amplifier operating conditions."
As written, claim 20 expressly requires aborting "a second spectral loading operation" and then later performing "the second spectral loading operation." Thus, the claim appears to require the headend processor to both abort and perform the same second spectral loading operation. The ordinary meaning of "abort" is to cancel or terminate an operation, while the claim later requires performance of the same operation. It is therefore unclear whether applicant intends the headend processor to cancel the second spectral loading operation, pause the second spectral loading operation, defer the second spectral loading operation until after AGC, restart the second spectral loading operation after AGC, or perform a different loading operation.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 20 are not reasonably certain, and claim 20 is indefinite.
Accordingly, claims 10-20 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 (R-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).
Because claims 10-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the following prior-art rejections are made under the principles of compact prosecution. For purposes of the prior-art rejections only, and without withdrawing or otherwise modifying the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, the Office applies the claim-specific interpretations stated below. All limitations of claims 10-20 have been considered under the stated interpretations.
For clarity, Al Sayeed '373 refers to Al Sayeed et al. (US10965373B1), which is relied upon for baseline/current transmission-profile comparison and gain correction, and Al Sayeed '737 refers to Al Sayeed et al. (US10050737B1), which is relied upon for transceiver/service margins, Pre-FEC BER, Q-factor/dBQ, and OSNR/SNR margin limitations.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al. (US20200153533A1) in view of Al Sayeed '373 (US10965373B1), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US20180123724A1), Mao et al. (US20040052453A1), Satyarthi et al. (US20230224063A1), and Al Sayeed '737 (US10050737B1).
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a network element having a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions that cause the processor to receive instructions from a headend network element on a transmission line segment to collect a QoS baseline measurement, collect the QoS baseline measurement, collect a QoS current measurement after a first spectral loading operation, determine that a numerical difference between the QoS current measurement and the QoS baseline measurement is outside a predetermined threshold, and send instructions to abort a second spectral loading operation and execute an AGC cycle.
Yilmaz teaches centrally and locally orchestrated ROADMs, loading policy managers, power controllers, DEMUX/MUX controllers, and a computer system that issues optical power control/loading commands
Yilmaz teaches: "The computer system 200 may comprise one or more processor 204, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 208, and one or more communication component 212. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 208 may store one or more database 216 and program logic 220. ... [T]he non-transitory computer readable medium 208 stores program logic, for example, a set of instructions capable of being executed by the one or more processor 204 ... to carry out the optical power control method." [Yilmaz, ¶¶ [0060] - [0061]].
Yilmaz teaches: "changes in channel loading, that is, the distribution of data across the signal wavelength, may cause a power transient ... The quantity of channels added or removed from the signal due to the operations may cause a significant change in stimulated Raman scattering per span for any existing channels on the fiber optic cable, thereby leading to a power transient." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0004]].
Yilmaz teaches: "The problem of loading channels as quickly as possible without causing a power transient that degrades a transmission signal is solved with the methods and systems described herein, including an orchestrator analyzing a list of operations with the network status data including existing data traffic on the fiber optic line to select a subset of the list of operations to execute that maintains the transmission signal below a bit error rate threshold. The orchestrator issues one or more signals to cause the one or more service within the
subset of the list of operations to be activated or deactivated on the optical communication system." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0006]].
Yilmaz teaches: "a transmission line segment is the portion of a transmission line from a first node (e.g., ROADM) transmitting a transmission signal to a second node (e.g., ROADM) receiving the transmission signal. ... Spectral loading, or channel loading, is the addition of one or more channel to a specific spectrum of light described by the lights wavelength in a transmission signal. ... The channel loading method 10 generally comprises: receiving a list of operations to execute (step 14); retrieving network status data (step 18); and determining executable operations to execute during a subsequent loading cycle (step 22)." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0028], ¶ [0033], ¶ [0038]].
Al Sayeed '373 further teaches baseline/current spectrum measurement and comparison in an optical line system
Al Sayeed '373 teaches: "Before faults are detected and the photonic line system is operating in a normal fashion, baseline or “ideal” spectrum measurements can be made. The baseline calculation micro-service 27 is configured to obtain measurements of both the C-band and L-band signals, when the photonic line system is operating properly. The baseline calculation micro-service 27 is configured to save these measurements ... as baseline spectrum levels. Future measurements of the PSD in the C-band and L-band can then be compared to these baseline spectrum levels." [Al Sayeed '373, p. 8, col. 7, line 24-col. 8, line 45].
Al Sayeed '373 teaches: "In case of a missing band of optical signals ... the control device 10 may be configured to compare the measured Transmission Profile ... with previously saved
baseline and applying a gain profile correction on the following amplifier specific to the surviving band. Thus, the gain profile correction (or difference between the baseline and measured L-band profiles) can be used to compensate for the inconsistencies that are experienced in the L-band when a fault is detected in the C-band hardware." [Al Sayeed '373, p. 13, col. 13, line 63-col. 14, line 21].
Further, Zhang teaches not illuminating, declining, or deferring proposed traffic when an impairment threshold would be exceeded,
Zhang teaches: "The extent of the calculated consequential impairments is automatically compared to an acceptable threshold value. The threshold value is selected such that impairments at or below the threshold value would not adversely affect network operation. ... If the consequential impairments would not exceed the acceptable threshold value, the wavelength is illuminated or scheduled to be illuminated ... However, if any consequential impairment would exceed the acceptable threshold value, the wavelength is not illuminated and, in some embodiments, a different proposed wavelength to illuminate is checked and/or a different proposed lightpath is checked, or the proposed traffic may be declined or deferred." [Zhang, ¶¶ [0237] - [0238]].
However, within analogous art, Mao teaches an automatic gain-control technique that changes pump power responsive to channel loading and measured signal power in order to maintain the desired gain profile
Mao teaches: "an optical power monitor for measuring optical power of the amplified Signals for monitoring changes in channel loading; a pump controller for comparing the optical
power of the amplified Signal to Stored values ... and for modifying the pump power of the first or Second pump Sources to correspond to a Stored value in response to changes in channel loading. ... detecting a total amplified signal power ... calculating the required first and second pump powers ... [and] providing the calculated pump powers ... to a pump controller for comparing the calculated pump powers to current pump powers and varying the pump powers if necessary." [Mao, ¶¶ [0012] - [0013] and ¶¶ [0021] - [0023]].
Satyarthi teaches: "receiving, by an orchestrator of an optical network, an operation to execute ... the operation being a loading of a first optical service on the fiber optic line by a local ROADM ... reserving the downstream ROADM for the loading of the first optical service by preventing the downstream ROADM from loading a second optical service on the fiber optic line and disabling one or more control block of the downstream ROADM ... and loading, by the local ROADM, the first optical service on the fiber optic line." [Satyarthi, ¶ [0010]].
The limitation of receiving instructions from a headend network element is met or at least rendered obvious because Yilmaz teaches centrally and locally orchestrated ROADMs, loading policy managers, power controllers, DEMUX/MUX controllers, and a computer system that issues optical power-control/loading commands. Al Sayeed '373 further teaches baseline/current spectrum measurement and comparison in an optical line system. The claimed tail-side collection of QoS data from the transmission line segment is the predictable use of the monitoring taught by Al Sayeed '373 and Mao in the loading system of Yilmaz.
The limitation of determining that a numerical difference is outside a predetermined threshold is met or at least rendered obvious by using the baseline/current transmission-profile
difference taught by Al Sayeed '373 with the acceptable-threshold comparison taught by Zhang. The limitation of aborting the second spectral loading operation is met or at least rendered obvious because Yilmaz teaches selecting only a subset of operations to execute in a loading cycle and deferring other operations to subsequent cycles, Zhang teaches not illuminating, declining, or deferring proposed traffic when an impairment threshold would be exceeded, and Satyarthi et al. expressly teaches preventing a second optical service from loading while a first loading operation is being handled. The claimed AGC cycle is met or at least rendered obvious by Mao and Al Sayeed '373, which teach automatic gain/pump/gain-profile correction in response to channel-loading or measured-profile changes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because Yilmaz and the presently claimed invention address the same concrete optical-line-system problem: adding or removing optical channels changes spectral loading, creates SRS-induced optical power transients, and can impair existing traffic unless the loading process is coordinated with optical power control. Yilmaz already teaches an orchestrator/loading-policy framework that selects only a subset of operations for execution in a loading cycle based on network status data and existing traffic.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Yilmaz loading framework with the baseline/current measurement comparison of Al Sayeed '373 because Al Sayeed '373 provides a measured feedback technique for a C+L photonic line system: save a baseline transmission profile when the line is operating properly, measure a later transmission profile, calculate the difference, and apply gain correction. This directly supplies the claimed
QoS baseline/current comparison and provides actual measured line response instead of relying only on predicted loading impact.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to use the threshold decision of Zhang because Zhang expressly teaches automatically comparing calculated optical impairments to an acceptable threshold and not illuminating, declining, or deferring proposed traffic when the threshold would be exceeded. Applying that threshold logic to the measured baseline/current difference of Al Sayeed '373 in the loading manager of Yilmaz would have predictably resulted in aborting or deferring the next spectral loading operation when measured QoS degradation is outside the acceptable range.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have used the automatic Raman gain-control response of Mao after the threshold failure because Mao teaches an automatic gain-control technique that changes pump power responsive to channel loading and measured signal power in order to maintain the desired gain profile. After a QoS threshold failure, the ordinary and predictable corrective action in an amplified optical line system would be to execute AGC to restore amplifier operating conditions before attempting further loading.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have looked to Satyarthi for the particular abort/prevent-next-loading instruction because Satyarthi teaches reserving a downstream ROADM for a loading operation by preventing the downstream ROADM from loading a second optical service and disabling control blocks during the loading operation. This is the same control concept as stopping or aborting additional spectral loading until the line is again in an acceptable operating condition.
The proposed combination does not require bodily incorporating all details of one reference into another. Rather, the combination uses each reference for its known function: Yilmaz for service-loading orchestration and current/subsequent loading cycles; Al Sayeed '373 for baseline/current optical-profile comparison and gain correction; Zhang for threshold-based proceed/fail loading decisions; Mao for AGC by amplifier/pump-power adjustment; and Satyarthi for preventing a second loading operation while optical power controls are handled. The result is a predictable optical-line control workflow using known components and known feedback logic for their established purposes.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 2 additionally expressly teaches that the QoS data comprises transceiver performance margins for traffic-carrying services already on the transmission line segment. However, within analogous art, Al Sayeed '737 teaches margins of active in-service photonic services and explicitly teaches calculating available margin using transponder-measured performance metrics.
Al Sayeed '737 states: "For each active service in each protection path, process 100 estimates, at 104, available margin. ... At 104, the margin for a service can be calculated in multiple ways for a photonic service using data measured from systems and transponder. The OSNR available margin for an existing photonic service can be estimated ... based on performance metrics including but not limited to: Pre-FEC (Forward Error Correction) BER (bit error rate),
dBQ (Q-factor on a dB scale) measured from the transponder, etc., and based on measured and/or estimated OSNR of the photonic service after traversing through the path." [Al Sayeed '737, p. 14, col. 13, line 14-col. 14, line 49].
Thus, the claimed transceiver performance margins for traffic-carrying services already on the line are taught by the margin information for active services, including transponder-measured Pre-FEC BER and dBQ/Q-factor values, in Al Sayeed '737.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected transponder-based margin data as QoS data in the loading system of claim 1 because the purpose of the claim 1 feedback is to decide whether existing traffic is being harmed. Transponder margins, Pre-FEC BER, Q-factor, and OSNR/SNR margins are direct service-level indications of whether traffic-carrying services are still operating with sufficient margin. The use of these metrics would have predictably improved the Yilmaz loading decision and the Al Sayeed '373 profile-comparison system by tying the threshold decision to actual in-service performance rather than merely modeled loading risk.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers,
transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 7 additionally expressly teaches that the QoS data comprises transponder carrier Q-factor performance. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Al Sayeed '737.
Al Sayeed '737 states: "The OSNR available margin for an existing photonic service can be estimated ... based on performance metrics including but not limited to: Pre-FEC (Forward Error Correction) BER (bit error rate), dBQ (Q-factor on a dB scale) measured from the transponder, etc. ... For custom modulation formats, lookup tables can be employed to convert the measured Q-factor or BER into an SNR value. Once the current operating SNR is determined, the SNR margin can be obtained by taking the delta with the minimum SNR required to ensure the FEC will still be able to provide error free operation." [Al Sayeed '737, p. 14, col. 13, line 28-col. 14, line 49].
Therefore, the claimed transponder carrier Q-factor performance is taught by the transponder-measured dBQ/Q-factor performance metric disclosed in Al Sayeed '737.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used transponder Q-factor as QoS data because Q-factor is a direct, service-level
indication of optical-signal quality and receiver margin. Incorporating the Q-factor teachings of Al Sayeed '737 into the Yilmaz and Al Sayeed '373 loading/feedback combination would have allowed the system to determine whether the first loading operation actually degraded traffic-carrying carriers, rather than relying only on power-level data. This would have predictably improved the decision of whether to abort further loading and execute AGC.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 9 additionally expressly teaches that adjusting amplifier operating conditions comprises adjusting amplifier operating conditions to reduce Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) optical disturbances. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Yilmaz et al., Mao et al., and Satyarthi et al.
Yilmaz states: "The quantity of channels added or removed from the signal due to the operations may cause a significant change in stimulated Raman scattering per span for any
existing channels on the fiber optic cable, thereby leading to a power transient." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0004]].
Yilmaz states: "Changes in tilt due to changes in channel loading require the link controller 58 to modify both tilt and gain settings of the optical in-line amplifiers." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0056]].
Mao states: "as channels are dropped from the System, the shorter wavelength (1427 nm) pump power needs to be decreased and the longer wavelength (1457 nm) pump power needs to be increased in order to maintain the original gain levels for the remaining channels." [Mao, ¶ [0055]].
Therefore, reducing SRS optical disturbances by adjusting amplifier operating conditions is taught because Yilmaz expressly identifies loading-induced SRS power transients, while Yilmaz and Mao teach modifying amplifier gain/tilt/pump power to restore or maintain desired gain levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have executed AGC to reduce SRS optical disturbances because SRS is the identified physical mechanism causing loading-induced power transfer and tilt, and amplifier gain/pump/tilt adjustment is the known countermeasure. The modification is not merely arbitrary; it directly addresses the cause of the post-loading QoS deviation and predictably restores amplifier operating conditions toward the desired profile.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels
quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 10
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 10 is interpreted as requiring that the second spectral loading operation initially scheduled before the first AGC cycle is stopped or deferred before execution, is then initiated or reinitiated after completion of the first AGC cycle, and is followed by collection of the second QoS current measurement. The recited third spectral loading operation is interpreted as the next scheduled loading operation following that post-AGC second spectral loading operation.
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 10 additionally expressly teaches that the QoS current measurement is a first QoS current measurement, the AGC cycle is a first AGC cycle, the predetermined threshold is a first predetermined threshold, and that the processor collects a second QoS current measurement after a second spectral loading operation, determines that a difference between the second current measurement and the baseline measurement is outside a second predetermined threshold different from the first, and sends instructions to abort a
third spectral loading operation and execute a second AGC cycle. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373 and Zhang.
Yilmaz states "Any operations not selected during the current activation/deactivation cycle may be added to a list of pending operations for a subsequent, e.g., next, activation/deactivation cycle." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0047]].
Al Sayeed '373 states: "the C+L traffic managing micro-service 24 may be configured to save a gain/loss transmission profile over the spectrum of each fiber span or link following initial link calibration or optimization of the photonic line system for a given spectral loading condition. The transmission profile for the fiber link is saved as a baseline for each band (C and L), considering the spectral loading for the link remains constant ... In a partial fill system, a new baseline will need to be taken following new capacity changes." [Al Sayeed '373, p. 12, col. 11, line 55-col. 12, line 18].
Zhang states: "if any consequential impairment would exceed the acceptable threshold value, the wavelength is not illuminated and, in some embodiments, a different proposed wavelength to illuminate is checked and/or a different proposed lightpath is checked, or the proposed traffic may be declined or deferred." [Zhang, ¶ [0238]].
Thus, iterative second-current-measurement and later-loading-cycle behavior is taught by Yilmaz because it expressly uses subsequent loading cycles, the second threshold outside/fail logic is taught by Zhang, and the repeated baseline/current comparison is taught by Al Sayeed '373. The second AGC cycle is taught by Mao because AGC/pump-power correction is performed whenever channel loading changes require restoring the characterized gain profile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because after one loading/measurement/AGC decision, a person of ordinary skill would have repeated the same known control loop during later loading cycles because loading operations in Yilmaz are serial or cyclic and because each later loading operation can create a new SRS/gain condition. Different thresholds for first and second checks would have been obvious because the loaded spectrum, remaining margin, service priority, or measurement metric may change after the first operation. A more conservative or more aggressive second threshold is a predictable design choice taught by the threshold-based impairment framework of Zhang and the policy/margin-based loading framework of Yilmaz.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al., Al Sayeed '373, Zhang et al., Mao et al., and Satyarthi et al., and further in view of Salehiomran et al. (US20220069539A1).
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 3 additionally expressly teaches that the QoS data comprises line-side band-level monitor photodiode values at the network element. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Salehiomran and Mao, which teach photodiode/power-monitor measurements in optical amplifiers and optical nodes.
Salehiomran states: "the control system may employ a first input photodiode that is to receive signals in the first range of optical wavelengths (e.g., an input photodiode for C-band signals) and a second input photodiode that is to receive signals in the second range of optical wavelengths (e.g., an input photodiode for L-band signals). ... the control system may provide independent power monitoring of signals in the first range of optical wavelengths (e.g., C-band signals) and in the second range of optical wavelengths (e.g., L-band signals)." [Salehiomran, ¶ [0015]].
Salehiomran states: "separate input monitor photodiodes for signals in the first range (e.g., C-band signals) and signals in the second range (e.g., L-band signals) ... may be used to monitor power levels ... of signals in the first range and in the second range, respectively, at an input ... separate output monitor photodiodes for signals in the first range ... and signals in the
second range ... may be used to monitor power levels ... of signals in the first range and in the second range, respectively." [Salehiomran, ¶¶ [0036] - [0037]].
Mao states: "The accuracy of the algorithm can be improved by the use of additional monitor photodiodes and filters, which provide more detailed information on the spectral distribution of the remaining channels. ... Light from the short wavelength band is directed to the monitor photodiode 1, 24a. Light in the middle wavelength band is directed to the monitor photodiode 2, 24b. And light in the long wavelength band is directed to monitor photodiode 3, 24c." [Mao, ¶ [0059]].
Therefore, the claimed line-side band-level monitor photodiode values are taught by the separate C-band/L-band input and output photodiodes of Salehiomran, as well as by the band-specific photodiode monitoring of Mao.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because band-level photodiode values would have been an obvious QoS input for the claim 1 loading feedback because the problem caused by spectral loading is a band-dependent power/SRS/tilt disturbance. Salehiomran teaches separate band-specific photodiodes precisely to obtain independent power monitoring for C-band and L-band signals. Incorporating these photodiode values into the Yilmaz loading decision would have provided a low-latency, low-complexity measured indication of whether the first spectral loading operation disturbed existing band powers beyond the threshold.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels
quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
To the extent the claims are understood, claims 4, 6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al., Al Sayeed '373, Zhang et al., Mao et al., Satyarthi et al., and Al Sayeed '737 and further in view of Syed et al. (US20200304204A1) and Buset et al. (US20230269020A1).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 4 additionally expressly teaches that the QoS data comprises monitor photodiode values at downstream network elements. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Syed et al., which teaches head-end and tail-end nodes, taps, OPMs, control circuits, and photodiode measurements at nodes along the optical working path.
Syed states: "an exemplary embodiment of an optical mesh network 10 having at least a first node 14a as a head-end node and a second node 14b as a tail-end node ... Each node 14 may further include an optical power monitor 32 (OPM) connected to the control circuit 34 ... such
that the optical power monitor 32 can determine a power level of the output of each transmitter system 18 or node 14 respectively." [Syed, ¶ [0037]].
Syed states: "Monitoring the signal working path may be performed by one or more OPM scan. In one embodiment, the OPM scan may determine a photodiode level optical loss of signal, that is a loss of signal based on measuring the photodiode 108 or the one or more photodiode monitoring the transmitter optical cables 70a-n and/or the filter output optical cable 62a-n." [Syed, ¶ [0051]].
Thus, downstream monitor photodiode values are taught by Syed because the tail-end/downstream node includes OPM and photodiode monitoring, and the OPM scan uses photodiode measurements to detect optical loss or channel-health changes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have measured QoS at downstream elements because the downstream/tail-end node sees the cumulative effect of all upstream loading, amplifier, Raman, and span impairments. Using downstream photodiode values in the Yilmaz loading manager would have provided direct feedback of the post-loading condition at the point where traffic impact is most visible, and it would have allowed the system to abort additional loading and run AGC only when the measured downstream state indicates that the prior loading operation has degraded the line beyond the acceptable threshold.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels
quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 6 additionally expressly teaches that the QoS data comprises ROADM optical power monitoring (OPM) trace data and metrics derived from the OPM trace data. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Syed and Buset.
Syed states: "the OPM 32 is a device which can monitor the health of an optical channel. The OPM 32 can monitor the power levels for the range of the spectrum of the optical channel. The OPM 32 may be placed on a reconfigurable optical add drop multiplexer (ROADM) card where multiplexing of multiple optical channels is done to form a complete C/L-band and where optical power controls are run for each optical channel." [Syed, ¶ [0038]].
Syed states: "Monitoring the signal working path may be performed by one or more OPM scan. ... the OPM scan may determine a photodiode level optical loss of signal ... In another embodiment, the OPM scan may determine a derived optical loss of signal. Such a derived optical loss of signal may provide finer granularity of losses, such as whether a particular
media channel of one or more media channels on a particular signal path has failed." [Syed, ¶ [0051]].
Buset states: "each OPM 74 may measure one or more optical characteristics of an optical signal, such as, for example, a power spectral density, a center frequency, an optical bandwidth, a shape, a channel slope, a channel roll-off, an average peak-to-floor ratio, and/or the like or some combination thereof." [Buset, ¶ [0052]].
Buset states: "validating the passband for activation ... comprises validating each channel and/or carrier on the passband, and, if any channel and/or carrier fails to validate, the passband fails to validate. ... The PFR for each slice 212 may then be compared against a predetermined ratio threshold for each slice 212 to determine whether the passband is valid." [Buset, ¶¶ [0122] - [0123]].
Thus, ROADM OPM trace data and derived metrics are taught by Syed because it expressly places the OPM on a ROADM card and performs OPM scans, and by Buset because it teaches OPM-derived power spectral density, shape, slope, roll-off, and peak-to-floor metrics used in threshold validation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because OPM trace data would have been an obvious QoS data source for the claim 1 feedback system because an OPM provides precisely the spectral information needed to determine whether SRS, gain tilt, or passband power excursions occurred after loading. It would have been obvious to use derived OPM metrics, such as PSD, slope, roll-off, or peak-to-floor ratios, because raw spectrum traces are routinely
converted into numerical features for fast threshold comparison and pass/fail decision making. That conversion is exactly the kind of predictable signal-processing implementation taught by Syed and Buset.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 8 additionally expressly teaches that the predetermined threshold is a predetermined range of values. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Zhang and Buset.
Zhang states: "The threshold value is selected such that impairments at or below the threshold value would not adversely affect network operation. For example, with impairments that do not exceed the threshold value, optical signal levels at all optical detectors remain within acceptable ranges. However, impairments that exceed the threshold
value cause at least one of these optical signal levels to become out-of-specification." [Zhang, ¶ [0237]].
Buset states: "if the input tributary power is between an upper power threshold and a lower power threshold (step 362), then mark the input optical signal as valid (step 366); otherwise mark the input optical signal as invalid (step 370)." [Buset, ¶ [0112]].
The claimed predetermined range of values is therefore taught by the acceptable/out-of-specification range of Zhang and by the upper-threshold/lower-threshold validity range of Buset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because in an optical loading and QoS-feedback system, an upper and lower acceptable range is an ordinary way to define acceptable power, margin, Q-factor, or OPM-metric variation. A single-sided threshold would detect only one direction of deviation, while a range detects both excess and insufficient power or performance. Using a predetermined range would therefore have been a predictable implementation of the threshold comparison already taught by Zhang and Buset.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers,
transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 11
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 11 is interpreted as requiring that the second spectral loading operation initially scheduled before the first AGC cycle is stopped or deferred before execution, is then initiated or reinitiated after completion of the first AGC cycle, and is followed by collection of the second QoS current measurement used in the within-threshold determination.
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 11 additionally expressly teaches that the QoS current measurement is a first QoS current measurement, the AGC cycle is a first AGC cycle, and that the processor collects a second QoS current measurement after a second spectral loading operation and determines that the numerical difference between the second current measurement and the baseline measurement is within the predetermined threshold. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Zhang and Buset.
Zhang states: "If the consequential impairments would not exceed the acceptable threshold value, the wavelength is illuminated or scheduled to be illuminated ..." [Zhang, ¶ [0238]].
Buset states: "if the passband is valid, activating the passband (step 412) may include multiplexing ... the passband into the optical signal." [Buset, ¶ [0131]].
Therefore, the claimed within-threshold determination after a second loading operation is taught by Zhang because it compares impairments to an acceptable threshold and proceeds when the threshold is not exceeded, and by Buset because it activates a passband after valid threshold-based validation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because a person of ordinary skill would have implemented a PASS or within-threshold branch as the complement of the FAIL or outside-threshold branch of claim 1. Such control logic is predictable and necessary: if the measured QoS deviation is not outside the predetermined threshold, then the system need not abort later loading or run AGC. Zhang and Buset expressly teach proceeding when validation/impairment checks pass, so the claim 11 within-threshold determination would have been obvious in the combined loading-feedback system.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al., Al Sayeed '373, Zhang et al., Mao et al., Satyarthi et al., and Al Sayeed '737 further in view of Syed et al., and Buset et al., and further in view of Ramanathan et al. (US20230261749A1).
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, all limitations of claim 4 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao, Satyarthi, Syed and Buset except wherein claim 5 additionally expressly teaches that the downstream network elements comprise one or more ROADM express and ROADM drop ports. However, within analogous art, the additional ROADM express/drop-port limitation is taught by Ramanathan.
Ramanathan states: "each of the system ports 194a-n may have a port type of either an express port or an add/drop port. ... the first system port 194a ... and the second system port 194b ... may have a port type of express port and may be considered express ports, while the third system port 194c, optically coupled to the light sink 100, may have a port type of add/drop port and may be considered a drop port. ... the sixth system port 194f, optically coupled to the light source 104, may have a port type of add/drop port and may be considered an add port." [Ramanathan, ¶ [0095]].
Ramanathan states: "each system port 194 has a port type of either Add/drop port or express port. When a particular system port 194 has a port type of add/drop port, the particular system port 194 interfaces directly with client signals. ... when a particular system port 194
has a port type of express port, the particular system port 194 provides direct express connectivity from one ROADM instance to another." [Ramanathan, ¶¶ [0136] - [0137]].
Therefore, the claimed downstream ROADM express and ROADM drop ports are taught by Ramanathan because its ROADM model expressly provides system ports having either express-port type or add/drop-port type, including drop and add ports.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because once the combination of claim 4 uses downstream ROADM/OPM/photodiode monitoring, it would have been obvious to use the conventional ROADM express and add/drop ports taught by Ramanathan because downstream network elements in WDM/ROADM networks necessarily include ports for express pass-through traffic and add/drop client traffic. Monitoring QoS at those ports would have predictably captured the power and service-quality effects experienced by both express traffic and locally dropped/added traffic after the first loading operation.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claims 12-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al. in view of Al Sayeed '373, and further in view of Zhang et al., Mao et al., Syed et al., and Satyarthi et al., and further in view of Buset et al.
Claim 12
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 12 is interpreted as requiring that the headend network element stop or defer the scheduled pre-AGC execution of the second spectral loading operation, execute the AGC cycle, and then initiate or reinitiate that second spectral loading operation after completion of the AGC cycle.
Claim 12 recites an optical network comprising a headend network element with processor/memory, a tail-end network element with processor/memory, and a transmission line segment connecting them. Claim 12 further recites that the tail-end receives instructions from the headend to collect a QoS baseline measurement, collects the baseline and current measurements, determines that the numerical difference is outside a threshold, and sends instructions to the headend to abort a second spectral loading operation and execute an AGC cycle, and that the headend aborts the second operation, executes AGC, and performs a second spectral loading operation.
Yilmaz expressly teaches coordinated optical controllers, ROADMs, transponders, and loading policy managers in an optical communication system
Yilmaz states: "the first optical controller 38a comprises a local orchestrator 42a, a power controller 46a, a DEMUX controller 50a, a MUX controller 54a, a link controller 58a, a ROADM 62a having a receive Degree 66a and a transmit degree 68a, and a plurality of transponders 70a. Similarly, the second optical controller 38b comprises a local orchestrator 42b, a power controller 46b, a DEMUX controller 50b, a MUX controller 54b, a link controller 58b, a ROADM 62b ..." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0039]].
Further, Syed expressly teaches a signal working path having a head-end node and a tail-end node
Syed states: "an exemplary embodiment of an optical mesh network 10 having at least a first node 14a as a head-end node and a second node 14b as a tail-end node ... Each node 14, such as the first node 14a and the second node 14b, are connected to at least one other node via a fiber optic cable 28." [Syed, ¶ [0037]].
Syed states: "identifying one or more signal working path ... includes identifying a signal path of a transmission signal received on a first transceiver (e.g., the first node 14a) and sent through a second transceiver (e.g., the second node 14b). ... Monitoring the signal working path may be performed by one or more OPM scan." [Syed, ¶¶ [0049] - [0051]].
However, within analogous art, Satyarthi expressly teaches the instruction to prevent a second optical service/loading operation.
Satyarthi states: "the downstream PCO requests 198b may include disable-adjust requests, which may include instructions to reserve a downstream ROADM ... by preventing the downstream ROADM 14 from loading another optical service 178 ... and disabling associated
control blocks 190 of the downstream ROADM 14 ... Additionally ... the downstream PCO responses and/or health updates 202b may include disable-adjust responses, which may be indicative of one of a success and a failure of reserving the downstream ROADM 14." [Satyarthi, ¶ [0096]].
Satyarthi states: "receive an operation to execute, the operation being a loading of a first optical service ... determine a status ... of the downstream ROADM ... reserve the downstream ROADM ... by preventing the downstream ROADM ... from loading a second optical service ... and disabling the control blocks ... and load the first optical service ..." [Satyarthi, ¶ [0106]].
The headend/tail-end network structure and transmission line segment are taught by Syed and Yilmaz. The tail-end monitoring and OPM/photodiode collection are taught by Syed. The baseline/current comparison and gain correction are taught by Al Sayeed '373. The threshold outside/inside logic and non-illumination/defer/decline decision are taught by Zhang. The AGC/gain adjustment is taught by Mao and Al Sayeed '373. The instruction to prevent a second optical service/loading operation is expressly taught by Satyarthi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the claim 1 feedback loop in the headend/tail-end optical-network architecture because Syed expressly teaches a signal working path having a head-end node and a tail-end node, and Yilmaz expressly teaches coordinated optical controllers, ROADMs, transponders, and loading policy managers in an optical communication system. The
claimed division of work between a headend loading element and a tail-end monitoring element is a predictable network-control allocation.
A person of ordinary skill would have placed the QoS baseline/current measurement at the tail-end because the tail-end observes the cumulative optical effect of the first spectral loading operation across the entire transmission line segment, including ROADM filtering, amplifier gain, SRS tilt, span loss, and power excursions. This location is technically advantageous because a headend-only model may under-estimate downstream traffic impact, while tail-end monitoring provides actual service-quality feedback after the first loading operation.
A person of ordinary skill would have sent the tail-end PASS/FAIL or abort/AGC instruction back to the headend because the headend or orchestrator is the entity controlling whether additional loading operations are issued. Satyarthi et al. teaches downstream status, reservation, disable-adjust requests, success/failure responses, and preventing a second optical service from being loaded. Combining this downstream feedback and reservation messaging with the Yilmaz et al. loading manager would have predictably allowed the system to stop the next loading operation and perform AGC when measured QoS deviation exceeded the threshold.
The motivation is not merely to automate a manual task. The motivation is to solve a specific optical-line problem recognized in the art: safely loading channels faster than one-at-a-time AGC while avoiding SRS-induced traffic impairment. The combined system would predictably execute the second spectral loading operation only after AGC restores acceptable amplifier
operating conditions, as taught by Mao et al. and Al Sayeed '373, and as required by the loading-cycle framework of Yilmaz et al.
Claim 13
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 13 is interpreted as incorporating the claim-12 sequence stated above, such that the phrase "after the second spectral loading operation" refers to the post-AGC second spectral loading operation initiated or reinitiated by the headend network element, and the recited third spectral loading operation is the next loading operation following that post-AGC second spectral loading operation.
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao, Syed and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 13 additionally expressly teaches collecting a second QoS current measurement after the second spectral loading operation, determining an outside-threshold difference, and sending instructions to abort a third spectral loading operation and execute a second AGC cycle. However, within analogous art, the combined system would predictably execute the second spectral loading operation only after AGC restores acceptable amplifier operating conditions, as taught by Mao and Al Sayeed '373, and as required by the loading-cycle framework of Yilmaz.
Yilmaz states: "Any operations not selected during the current activation/deactivation cycle may be added to a list of pending operations for a subsequent, e.g., next, activation/deactivation cycle." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0047]].
Satyarthi states: "reserving the downstream ROADM 14g further comprises: sending a disable-adjust request to the downstream ROADM 14g, the disable-adjust request including instructions to reserve the downstream ROADM 14g for the loading of the first optical service 178 by preventing the downstream ROADM 14g from loading the second optical service 178 ... and receiving a disable-adjust response ... indicative of one of a success and a failure of reserving the downstream ROADM 14g." [Satyarthi, ¶ [0108]].
Thus, repeating the tail-end feedback check after the second loading operation and aborting a third loading operation when the second current measurement is outside threshold would have been obvious because the references teach iterative loading cycles, repeated status/reservation messages, and threshold-based decisions to proceed or defer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because the same measurement-and-control loop used after the first loading operation would predictably be repeated after the second loading operation because each additional loading operation can change SRS tilt and power distribution. A second AGC cycle is not a new mechanism, but the repeated application of the known AGC response from Mao after another threshold failure. This is particularly motivated by the teaching in Yilmaz that operations may be executed in subsequent cycles and by Satyarthi that downstream reservation/disable-adjust procedures can be repeated for loading operations.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels
quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 14
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 14 is interpreted as incorporating the claim-12 sequence stated above, such that the second QoS current measurement is collected after the post-AGC second spectral loading operation and is compared with the QoS baseline measurement using the recited second predetermined threshold, which is different from the first predetermined threshold.
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao, Syed and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 14 additionally expressly teaches that the predetermined threshold is a first predetermined threshold, and that a second QoS current measurement after the second spectral loading operation is compared to the baseline using a second predetermined threshold different from the first threshold. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Yilmaz and Zhang.
Yilmaz states: "Exemplary loading parameters include, but are not limited to: loading management operation type ... frequency range ... bandwidth ... quality of service (QoS) requirements; selection of a loading algorithm; region in a spectrum where requested loading
is to take place and whether such region is to be prioritized; maximum power change allowed due to loading; loading factor for a given range of current loading ... The loading pattern may be dynamically derived depending on the loading policy and current system conditions." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0046]].
Zhang states: "The threshold value is selected such that impairments at or below the threshold value would not adversely affect network operation." [Zhang, ¶ [0237]].
A second predetermined threshold different from the first is therefore rendered obvious by Yilmaz which teaches QoS requirements, maximum power change allowed, priorities, algorithms, policies, and current system conditions as loading parameters, and by Zhang which teaches selecting threshold values based on acceptable impairment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because after the second loading operation, the spectrum and remaining traffic margins may differ from those existing after the first loading operation. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have used different thresholds for different loading stages, service priorities, bands, or QoS metrics. This is a predictable optimization within the Yilmaz loading policy framework, which expressly accounts for QoS requirements, maximum power change allowed due to loading, and current loading conditions. The modification does not change the principle of operation; it simply applies the threshold taught by Zhang according to the particular stage and risk of the loading process.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels
quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 15
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 15 is interpreted as incorporating the claim-12 sequence stated above, such that the second QoS current measurement is collected after the post-AGC second spectral loading operation, and the third spectral loading operation is performed only after the resulting numerical difference is determined to be within the predetermined threshold.
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao, Syed and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 15 additionally expressly teaches collecting a second QoS current measurement after the second spectral loading operation, determining that the numerical difference is within the predetermined threshold, and, subsequent to that within-threshold determination, causing the headend to perform a third spectral loading operation. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Zhang and Buset.
Zhang states: "If the consequential impairments would not exceed the acceptable threshold value, the wavelength is illuminated or scheduled to be illuminated ..." [Zhang, ¶ [0238]].
Buset states: "if the passband is valid, activating the passband (step 412) may include multiplexing ... the passband into the optical signal." [Buset, ¶ [0131]].
Therefore, performing a third spectral loading operation after a within-threshold second check is taught or rendered obvious by the proceed/illuminate branch of Zhang and the valid-passband activation branch of Buset applied to the iterative loading cycles of Yilmaz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because a person of ordinary skill would have continued to a third loading operation after the second QoS check passes because the purpose of the loading manager is to serialize and execute requested loading operations without unnecessary AGC. If the second current measurement is within threshold, the system has direct measured confirmation that additional loading can proceed without unacceptable degradation. This is the ordinary and predictable counterpart to aborting and running AGC when the threshold is exceeded.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 16
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 16 is interpreted as incorporating the claim-12 sequence stated above, with the AGC cycle adjusting amplifier operating conditions to reduce SRS optical disturbances before the deferred second spectral loading operation is initiated or reinitiated.
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao, Syed and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 16 additionally expressly teaches that adjusting amplifier operating conditions comprises adjusting amplifier operating conditions to reduce SRS optical disturbances. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Yilmaz, Satyarthi and Mao.
Yilmaz states: "The quantity of channels added or removed from the signal due to the operations may cause a significant change in stimulated Raman scattering per span for any existing channels on the fiber optic cable, thereby leading to a power transient." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0004]].
Satyarthi states: "C+L optical line systems may be susceptible to experiencing optical power transients during loading operations due to the Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) effect across the different frequency bands. ... Optical power control functionality for C+L Band requires orchestration and network-wide coordination to avoid transients and SRS tilt implications." [Satyarthi, ¶ [0005], ¶ [0007]].
Mao states: "a pump controller for comparing the optical power of the amplified Signal to Stored values ... and for modifying the pump power of the first or Second pump Sources to correspond to a Stored value in response to changes in channel loading." [Mao, ¶ [0013]].
The additional limitation is therefore taught by the combination because the art identifies SRS as the source of loading-induced power disturbances and teaches amplifier/pump/gain-control adjustments as the mechanism to mitigate those disturbances.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because the claim 12 optical network performs loading over a headend-to-tail-end transmission line segment, the same SRS disturbances described by Yilmaz and Satyarthi would arise when loading changes occur. It would have been obvious to adjust amplifier operating conditions to reduce those disturbances using Mao and Al Sayeed '373 because those references provide automatic gain or pump-control adjustments responsive to changes in signal loading or measured spectrum profile.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 17
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 17 is interpreted as incorporating the claim-12 loading sequence stated above and as reciting a distinct baseline-validation sequence in which: (i) a comparative QoS baseline measurement is collected after a first AGC cycle; (ii) the first QoS baseline measurement is subsequently collected and compared with the comparative QoS baseline measurement; (iii) a third AGC cycle is run when the difference exceeds the predetermined difference maximum; and (iv) the second QoS baseline measurement collected after that third AGC cycle becomes the updated baseline for subsequent QoS comparisons. For this prior-art interpretation, the ordinal labels "first," "second," and "third" identify the AGC cycles recited in the claim, and no additional chronological relationship is imposed beyond the expressly recited sequence.
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao, Syed and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 17 additionally expressly teaches that the AGC cycle is a second AGC cycle, the QoS baseline measurement is a first QoS baseline measurement, and that the tail-end collects a comparative QoS baseline measurement after a first AGC cycle and before the first QoS baseline measurement, compares the comparative and first baseline measurements to determine that their numerical difference is greater than a predetermined difference maximum, instructs the headend to run a third AGC cycle, and collects a second QoS baseline measurement. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Al Sayeed '373 and Zhang.
Al Sayeed '373 states: "Before faults are detected and the photonic line system is operating in a normal fashion, baseline or “ideal” spectrum measurements can be made. ... Future measurements of the PSD in the C-band and L-band can then be compared to these baseline spectrum levels. ... [T]he amplifier compensation micro-service 29 is configured to apply the gain correction levels to the optical amplifiers to compensate for the negative influences in an attempt to get the PSD levels to (or near) the baseline spectrum levels obtained when the photonic line system was operating in a properly-functioning manner." [Al Sayeed '373, p. 8, col. 7, line 24-col. 8, line 45].
Al Sayeed '373 states: "the transmission profile for the fiber link is saved as a baseline for each band (C and L), considering the spectral loading for the link remains constant ... In a partial fill system, a new baseline will need to be taken following new capacity changes." [Al Sayeed '373, p. 12, col. 11, line 55-col. 12, line 18].
Zhang states: "The extent of the calculated consequential impairments is automatically compared to an acceptable threshold value. The threshold value is selected such that impairments at or below the threshold value would not adversely affect network operation." [Zhang, ¶ [0237]].
Thus, claim 17 is rendered obvious because Al Sayeed '373 teaches saving baseline measurements, comparing future measurements to baseline levels, applying amplifier correction to return the PSD levels toward baseline, and taking a new baseline after capacity changes. Zhang supplies the predetermined maximum/threshold comparison logic. Mao
supplies the automatic gain-control cycle response when the measured/baseline relationship is unacceptable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because baseline-to-baseline verification would have been obvious as a safeguard in the claim 12 system because a baseline is only useful if it represents the desired post-AGC operating state. If a new baseline differs too much from an earlier AGC-established baseline, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the line state has drifted, the baseline may be invalid, and another AGC cycle should be run before using that baseline for later current-measurement comparisons. This is a direct and predictable application of the Al Sayeed '373 baseline/future-measurement comparison and gain-correction teachings, combined with the threshold-decision logic of Zhang.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 20
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 20 is interpreted as requiring that the headend network element stop or defer the scheduled second spectral loading operation before execution, execute the AGC cycle, and then initiate or reinitiate that same scheduled second spectral loading operation after completion of the AGC cycle.
Claim 20 is an independent optical-network claim. It recites a headend network element, a tail-end network element, and a transmission line segment connecting them. The tail-end receives instructions through the segment to collect a QoS baseline measurement, collects the baseline and current measurements after a first spectral loading operation, and sends both measurements to the headend. The headend receives the measurements, determines that a numerical difference is outside a predetermined threshold, aborts a second spectral loading operation, executes an AGC cycle, and then performs the second spectral loading operation after executing the AGC cycle.
Syed states: "an exemplary embodiment of an optical mesh network 10 having at least a first node 14a as a head-end node and a second node 14b as a tail-end node ... Each node 14, such as the first node 14a and the second node 14b, are connected to at least one other node via a fiber optic cable 28." [Syed, ¶ [0037]].
Yilmaz teaches an orchestrator/computer system receiving network status data and making loading decisions.
Yilmaz teaches subsequent loading cycles and continuing to execute loading operations once system conditions permit.
Yilmaz et al. teaches an orchestrator and computer system that receives network status data and issues loading commands
Yilmaz states: "The computer system 200 may comprise one or more processor 204, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 208, and one or more communication component 212. ... [T]he non-transitory computer readable medium 208 stores program logic ... capable of being executed by the one or more processor 204 ... to carry out the optical power control method." [Yilmaz, ¶¶ [0060] - [0061]].
Yilmaz states: "an orchestrator analyzing a list of operations with the network status data including existing data traffic on the fiber optic line to select a subset of the list of operations to execute that maintains the transmission signal below a bit error rate threshold. The orchestrator issues one or more signals to cause the one or more service within the subset of the list of operations to be activated or deactivated on the optical communication system." [Yilmaz, ¶ [0006]].
Al Sayeed '373 teaches a control device performing the baseline/current comparison and applying gain correction.
Al Sayeed '373 teaches a control device performing baseline/current profile comparisons and applying gain correction
Al Sayeed '373 states: "baseline or “ideal” spectrum measurements can be made. ... Future measurements of the PSD in the C-band and L-band can then be compared to these baseline spectrum levels." [Al Sayeed '373, p. 8, col. 7, line 24-col. 8, line 45].
Al Sayeed '373 states: "the control device 10 may be configured to compare the measured Transmission Profile ... with previously saved baseline and applying a gain profile correction on the following amplifier specific to the surviving band. Thus, the gain profile correction (or difference between the baseline and measured L-band profiles) can be used to compensate for the inconsistencies ..." [Al Sayeed '373, p. 13, col. 13, line 63-col. 14, line 21].
Zhang states: "if any consequential impairment would exceed the acceptable threshold value, the wavelength is not illuminated and, in some embodiments, a different proposed wavelength to illuminate is checked and/or a different proposed lightpath is checked, or the proposed traffic may be declined or deferred." [Zhang, ¶ [0238]].
Mao states: "detecting a total amplified signal power ... calculating the required first and second pump powers to maintain the characterized gain profile and gain level ... [and] providing the calculated pump powers ... to a pump controller for comparing the calculated pump powers to current pump powers and varying the pump powers if necessary." [Mao, ¶¶ [0021] - [0023]].
Claim 20 differs from claim 12 mainly in that the tail-end sends the baseline/current measurements to the headend and the headend performs the comparison. This difference is rendered obvious by Yilmaz et al., which teaches an orchestrator/computer system receiving network status data and making loading decisions, and by Al Sayeed '373, which teaches a
control device performing the baseline/current comparison and applying gain correction. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that the comparison logic can reside at the tail-end, headend, or centralized controller so long as the measured QoS data is communicated to the processor making the loading decision.
The headend aborting the second spectral loading operation is taught or rendered obvious by Zhang et al., Yilmaz et al., and Satyarthi et al., because the prior art teaches not illuminating, deferring, or preventing a subsequent optical service/loading operation when the threshold/status decision indicates unacceptable impairment or reservation failure. The headend executing AGC is taught by Mao et al. and Al Sayeed '373. The headend then performing the second spectral loading operation after AGC is rendered obvious by Yilmaz et al., which teaches subsequent loading cycles and continuing to execute loading operations once system conditions permit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the baseline/current comparison at the headend because the headend/orchestrator is the control point that schedules, aborts, defers, or performs spectral loading operations. Yilmaz et al. teaches an orchestrator and computer system that receives network status data and issues loading commands, while Al Sayeed '373 teaches a control device performing baseline/current profile comparisons and applying gain correction. Therefore, transmitting the baseline and current QoS measurements from the tail-end to the headend is a predictable allocation of known monitoring and control functions.
A person of ordinary skill would have had a practical reason to centralize the comparison at the headend: the headend already knows the first and second loading operations, service priorities, pending operations, loading policy, and whether the next loading operation should be attempted. Receiving tail-end QoS data at the headend would allow the same controller that schedules the next loading operation to determine immediately whether the QoS deviation is outside threshold, abort or defer the second loading operation, execute AGC, and then resume the second loading operation after the optical line is stabilized.
This modification is a predictable variation of the claim 12 architecture. The difference is not a new optical component or a new physical phenomenon; it is merely placing the threshold comparison logic in the headend processor rather than in the tail-end processor after the tail-end has supplied the measurements. The art already teaches distributed and centralized orchestration, status messaging, OPM/photodiode monitoring, baseline/current comparison, threshold failure, and AGC correction. Accordingly, claim 20 would have been obvious over the cited combination.
To the extent the claims are understood, claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al. in view of Al Sayeed '373, and further in view of Zhang et al., Mao et al., Syed et al., and Satyarthi et al., and further in view of Al Sayeed '737, Salehiomran et al., and Buset et al.
Claim 18
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 18 is interpreted as incorporating the claim-12 sequence stated above and as requiring the predetermined threshold to be an acceptable range having one or more boundary values, with an outside-threshold determination occurring when the numerical difference falls outside that range.
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao, Syed and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 18 additionally expressly teaches that the predetermined threshold is a predetermined range of values. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Zhang and Buset.
Zhang states: "with impairments that do not exceed the threshold value, optical signal levels at all optical detectors remain within acceptable ranges. However, impairments that exceed the threshold value cause at least one of these optical signal levels to become out-of-specification." [Zhang, ¶ [0237]].
Buset states: "if the input tributary power is between an upper power threshold and a lower power threshold (step 362), then mark the input optical signal as valid (step 366); otherwise mark the input optical signal as invalid (step 370)." [Buset, ¶ [0112]].
Therefore, a predetermined range of values is taught by the acceptable range/out-of-specification concept of Zhang and the upper-threshold/lower-threshold range of Buset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because the same reasons stated for claim 8 apply here in the optical-network embodiment of claim 12. A range of values is the natural way to validate power, Q-factor, margin, or OPM-derived metrics because both high and low deviations can be traffic-impacting. The claimed range would have predictably improved the combined system by avoiding false PASS determinations when the deviation is unacceptable in either direction.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
Claim 19
For purposes of the prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 19 is interpreted as incorporating the claim-12 sequence stated above and as requiring the numerical difference to be determined for each selected QoS data type, carrier, or derived metric against a corresponding predetermined threshold, with an outside-threshold determination occurring when at least one selected difference is outside its corresponding threshold.
With respect to claim 19, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Yilmaz, Al Sayeed '373, Zhang, Mao, Syed and Satyarthi, except wherein claim 19 additionally expressly teaches that the QoS data comprises one or more types of data comprising one or more of: transceiver performance margin data, line-side band-level monitor photodiode values at the tail-end network element, monitor photodiode values at downstream network elements, ROADM OPM trace data and metrics derived from the OPM trace data, and transponder carrier Q-factor performance data. However, within analogous art, the additional limitation is taught by Al Sayeed '737, Salehiomran, Buset and Syed.
Al Sayeed '737 states: "performance metrics including but not limited to: Pre-FEC (Forward Error Correction) BER (bit error rate), dBQ (Q-factor on a dB scale) measured from the transponder, etc. ... lookup tables can be employed to convert the measured Q-factor or BER into an SNR value." [Al Sayeed '737, p. 14, col. 13, line 28-col. 14, line 49].
Salehiomran states: "separate input monitor photodiodes for signals in the first range ... and signals in the second range ... may be used to monitor power levels ... separate output
monitor photodiodes for signals in the first range ... and signals in the second range ... may be used to monitor power levels ..." [Salehiomran, ¶¶ [0036] - [0037]].
Syed states: "Monitoring the signal working path may be performed by one or more OPM scan. ... the OPM scan may determine a photodiode level optical loss of signal ... [or] a derived optical loss of signal." [Syed, ¶ [0051]].
Buset states: "each OPM 74 may measure one or more optical characteristics of an optical signal, such as, for example, a power spectral density, a center frequency, an optical bandwidth, a shape, a channel slope, a channel roll-off, an average peak-to-floor ratio, and/or the like or some combination thereof." [Buset, ¶ [0052]].
Thus, claim 19 is met or at least rendered obvious because the references teach each recited type of QoS data: transponder margins/Q-factor in Al Sayeed '737, line-side and band-level photodiode values in Salehiomran, downstream photodiode/OPM scan values in Syed, and ROADM OPM trace data and derived metrics in Syed and Buset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because a person of ordinary skill would have used one or more of these data types together because each measures a different aspect of the same traffic-impact problem. Photodiode values provide fast band-level power feedback; OPM traces provide spectral and passband-level detail; Q-factor and transceiver margin provide direct service-level quality. The combination would have improved the reliability of the loading decision by reducing false PASS and false FAIL outcomes, while still using known, conventional optical monitoring components already present in ROADM/transponder systems.
The combination merely applies known optical-line-system feedback, loading-management, impairment-threshold, and gain-control techniques to the known problem of loading channels quickly while protecting existing traffic from SRS-induced power transients, tilt, BER/Q-margin degradation, and unacceptable optical-power changes. The result would have been predictable because the references use the same class of optical networks, ROADMs, WSSs, amplifiers, transponders, OPM/photodiode monitoring, loading operations, and automatic optical power control mechanisms.
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
/DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights