Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saghari et al. (U.S. Patent 11,967,994 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 2 an optical transmission device, comprising: a first transceiver (the transceiver Tx1/Rx1 connected to 222), configured to receive a service packet from a switch (router 232); an optical transceiver (the transceiver Tx2/Rx2 connected to 224), configured to send the service packet to a target optical transmission device (router and hosts connected to 224); and at least one processor (switch controller 220; Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 4 that the switch controller monitor the status of the ports Tx1, Rx1, …TxN, RxN), configured to: obtain status information of an optical transmission path for transmitting the service packet; and send the status information of the optical transmission path to a service device (router and hosts connected to 222), wherein the service device is configured to generate the service packet.
Regarding claim 2, Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 4 the structure of the switch controller. It is understood that the communication connection 770 of the switch controller has a transceiver suggested by the bidirectional arrow.
Regarding claim 17, Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a system, comprising: a service device (router and hosts connected to 222); a switch (router 232); and a first optical transmission device (router 100), comprising: a first transceiver (the transceiver Tx1/Rx1 connected to 222), configured to receive a service packet from the switch; an optical transceiver (the transceiver Tx2/Rx2 connected to 224), configured to send the service packet to a target optical transmission device (router and hosts connected to 224); and at least one first processor (switch controller 220; Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 4 that the switch controller monitor the status of the ports Tx1, Rx1, …TxN, RxN), configured to: obtain status information of a first optical transmission path for transmitting the service packet, and send the status information of the first optical transmission path to the service device (router and hosts connected to 222); wherein the service device is configured to generate the service packet; and wherein the switch is configured to: receive the service packet from the service device, and send the service packet to the first optical transmission device (router 100).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saghari et al. (U.S. Patent 11,967,994 B1) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent 9,225,454 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 3 an optical transmission device, comprising: a first transceiver (the device 320 of FIG. 3 is interpreted as the same as the device 108 of FIG. 1 and the first transceiver is equivalent to the optical receiver 120 and modulated optical source 122 of FIG. 1); an optical transceiver (Tx1 and Rx1 128), configured to send the service packet to a target optical transmission device (device 370 of datacenter 312); and at least one processor (the switch controller 410 as illustrated in FIG. 4), configured to: obtain status information of an optical transmission path for transmitting the service packet (Saghari et al. teaches in col. 4, lines 30-64 that there are two bidirectional paths, path A and path B, between datacenters 310 and 312. When path A is disrupted, the switch switches signal to use path B for carrying the service packet.).
The difference between Saghari et al. and the claimed invention is that FIG. 3 of Saghari et al. does not teach a service device. It is understood that the data to be sent between the two datacenters of FIG. 3 is generated by host server computers as illustrated in FIG.2 of Saghari et al. Liu et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a datacenter comprising transceivers 112 and 108 which are equivalent to transceivers 128 and transceiver 120+122 of FIG. 1 of Saghari et al. The rack 232 of FIG. 2 of Saghari et al. is equivalent to a rack 102-1 of FIG. 1 of Liu et al. and the router 232 of FIG. 2 of Saghari et al., which is equivalent to the switch of instant claim, is equivalent to CP (communication port) of FIG. 1 of Liu et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Liu et al. with the system of Saghari et al. because Liu et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Saghari et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate the service packet from a rack, as taught by Liu et al., in the system of Saghari et al.
Regarding claim 2, Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 7 the structure of the switch controller. It is understood that the communication connection 770 of the switch controller has a transceiver suggested by the bidirectional arrow.
Regarding claim 4, Saghari et al. teaches in col. 4, lines 30-64 that there are two bidirectional paths, path A and path B, between datacenters 310 and 312. When path A is disrupted, the switch switches signal to use path B for carrying the service packet.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Saghari et al. and Liu et al. teaches a service device (the datacenter such as host rack 230 of FIG. 2 of Saghari et al.), comprising: at least one processor (server computers of rack 230 of FIG. 2 of Saghari et al.); and a transceiver (the rack 230 is connected to the transceiver of the router 100 which implies the router 232 of the service device also has transceiver), configured to: send a service packet; receive status information of a first optical transmission path from a first optical transmission device (the transceivers 320 and 350 of FIG. 3 of Saghari et al. are connected to a switch controller, as illustrated in FIG. 4 of Saghari et al., which monitors the status of the transceivers Tx1/Rx1 and Tx2/Rx2 where Tx1/Rx1 is a first optical transmission device and Tx2/Rx2 is the second optical transmission device; the status is sent to the service device as illustrated in FIG. 2 of Saghari et al.); receive status information of a second optical transmission path from a second optical transmission device; and send the status information of the first optical transmission path and the status information of the second optical transmission path to the at least on processor; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, based on the status information of the first optical transmission path and the status information of the second optical transmission path, whether to perform input/output (I/O) link switching (Saghari et al. teaches in col. 4, lines 30-64 that there are two bidirectional paths, path A and path B, between datacenters 310 and 312. When path A is disrupted, the switch switches signal to use path B for carrying the service packet).
Regarding claim 8, Saghari et al. teaches in col. 4, lines 30-64 that there are two bidirectional paths, path A and path B, between datacenters 310 and 312. When path A is disrupted, the switch switches signal to use path B for carrying the service packet; in other words, path B is a protection path for path A.
Regarding claim 9, Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a plurality of transceivers 320, …, 352, 350. Therefore, the service device also receives status information from a second switch of a second transceiver 350 via the transceiver of the service device.
Claim 11 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 5 because an apparatus implies the method of using the apparatus.
Regarding claim 14, Saghari et al. teaches in col. 4, lines 30-64 that there are two bidirectional paths, path A and path B, between datacenters 310 and 312. When path A is disrupted, the switch switches signal to use path B for carrying the service packet; in other words, path B is a protection path for path A.
Regarding claim 15, Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a plurality of transceivers 320, …, 352, 350. Therefore, the service device also receives status information about the second path from a second switch of a second transceiver 350 via the transceiver of the service device.
Claim 17 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Liu et al. teaches in FIG. 1 second transceiver 107-1 for sending a service packet; Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 5 the control plan of the network device which contains a controller 530 equivalent to the second processor of instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Saghari et al. teaches in FIG. 2 that the transceiver 108 is connected to the router which implies that the router has a corresponding transceiver which is equivalent to the third transceiver of instant claim.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saghari et al. and Liu et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Bhatnagar et al. (U.S. Patent 10,826,601 B2).
Saghari et al. and Liu et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15 and 17-19. The difference between Saghari et al. and Liu et al. and the claimed invention is that Saghari et al. and Liu et al. do not teach that the status information of the first optical transmission path indicates that a transmission exception occurs on the first optical transmission path, the status information of the second optical transmission path indicates that the second optical transmission path is not faulty. Bhatnagar et al. teaches in FIG. 7 a protection scheme comprising PD1 for indicating that the upper path fails (indicated by the cross), PD2 for indicating that the lower path is not faulty (there is no cross on the lower path) and switching the working path from the upper path to the lower path (indicated by the arrow in the switch). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Bhatnagar et al. with the modified system of Saghari et al. and Liu et al. because Bhatnagar et al. indicates the details of implementation that are missing from Saghari et al. and Liu et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mechanism for determining that a primary path fails and a secondary path is not faulty when a protection switch is initiated, as taught by Bhatnagar et al., in the modified system of Saghari et al. and Liu et al.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saghari et al. and Liu et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Moor (Moor, “Datacenter Memory and Storage”, Moor Insight & Strategy, April 2015).
Saghari et al. and Liu et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15 and 17-19. The difference between Saghari et al. and Liu et al. and the claimed invention is that Saghari et al. and Liu et al. do not teach that the service device is a storage device, the service device further comprises a memory, and the memory is configured to store the service packet. Moor teaches in FIG. 1 the structure of a server system comprising storage and memory where the memory is where compute keeps applications and the data those applications need while they are running. That is, a datacenter stores service packets in memory. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Moor with the modified system of Saghari et al. and Liu et al. because Moor teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Saghari et al. and Liu et al.. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store service packet in memory of a datacenter, as taught by Moor, in the modified system of Saghari et al. and Liu et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 7, 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
skl23 August 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights