DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2025 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
NOTE: In order to promote compact prosecution, prior art will be applied for all claim limitations as appropriate, even when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) does not require certain contingent or alternative limitations present in claims. However, this should not be taken as an acknowledgement that the BRI and therefore the scope of claims with such limitations are different than as discussed below.
Regarding claim 9, the method claim contains recitation(s) contingent upon “an abnormality in the transmission via the first network port”. However, this recitation is not required to carry out the claimed invention (i.e. there is not an abnormality via the first network port) and according to MPEP 2111.04, II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See also Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Therefore, the BRI of claim 9 does not require the following limitation(s) when there is no abnormality:
“transmitting at least one downstream message to at least one of the ONUs via the second network port;
receiving an upstream message from one of the at least one of the ONUs via the second network port;
calculating a reference round-trip time according to a first time point at which the OLT transmits the downstream message and a second time point at which the OLT receives the upstream message;
calculating a time difference between the reference round-trip time and the original round-trip time of the ONU that responds to the OLT with the upstream message;
adjusting the original round-trip times to a plurality of updated round- trip times respectively according to the time difference; and
performing transmission between the OLT and the ONUs via the second network port according to the updated round-trip times.”
A way to overcome this would be to amend the claim as follows:
“the round-trip time adjustment method comprising:
detecting an abnormality in the transmission via the first network port;
in response to [[an]] the detecting of the abnormality in the transmission via the first network port, the OLT performs the following steps:…”
Dependent claim 16 only further defines limitations that would be contingent upon “an abnormality in the transmission via the first network port” and therefore BRI would not include the steps when there is no abnormality.
Dependent claim 10 recites structure but then recites more limitations that are contingent upon “an abnormality in the transmission via the first network port”. Therefore, the BRI of the claim would not include the following limitations when there is no abnormality:
“the processing circuit instructs the first dynamic bandwidth assignment module to switch from an active mode to a standby mode and instructs the second dynamic bandwidth assignment module to switch from the standby mode switches to the active mode”.
Claims 11-15, all dependent on claim 10, only further define limitations that would be contingent upon “an abnormality in the transmission via the first network port” and therefore BRI would not include the steps of the claims when there is no abnormality.
NOTE: Claims 1-8 is/are an apparatus and therefore the BRI of the claim(s) would require structure capable of performing the contingent limitation(s) (see MPEP 2111.04, II, second paragraph).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0038629.
Regarding claim 1, Johansson teaches an optical line terminal (OLT) (see Johansson Figure 4, OLT system), applied to a passive optical network (PON) system comprising a plurality of optical network units (ONUs) (see Figure 1, ONUs 114 and Abstract), the optical line terminal comprising:
a first network port being coupled to the ONUs (see Figure 1, port from OLT device 106 connected to fiber 110 and Figure 4, interface 122’);
a second network port being coupled to the ONUs (see Figure 1, port from OLT device 108 connected to fiber 112 and Figure 4, interface 122);
wherein the OLT stores a plurality of original round-trip times for transmission between the OLT and the ONUs via the first network port (see Figure 5, which shows the details of processing devices 124 of Figure 4, memory 128 and paragraph [0044]);
wherein, in response to an abnormality in the transmission via the first network port (see Figure 9, step 204), the OLT performs the following operations:
transmitting at least one downstream message to at least one of the ONUs via the second network port (see Figure 9, steps 208 and 210 and Figure 11 which shows an embodiment of the steps, step 250 which shows one ONU is selected and step 254 which sends a ranging request to the selected ONU. This is further described in paragraph [0065], “Further, step 208 comprises step 252 of sending a directed POPUP message to the selected optical network device ONU.sub.i…Step 210 comprises step 254 of sending a ranging request message to the selected optical network device”);
receiving an upstream message from one of the at least one of the ONUs via the second network port (see Figure 11, step 256 and paragraph [0065], “In step 256, the second optical line termination device, e.g. the second optical line termination device 108, 120, 120', receives the ranging response message from the selected optical network device”);
calculating a reference round-trip time according to a first time point at which the OLT transmits the downstream message and a second time point at which the OLT receives the upstream message (see paragraph [0065], “…thereby measuring the round trip delay RTD.sub.2(i) between the selected optical network device and the second optical line termination device”);
calculating a time difference between the reference round-trip time and the original round-trip time of the ONU that responds to the OLT with the upstream message (see paragraphs [0066]-[0067]);
adjusting a plurality of equalization delay times to a plurality of updated equalization delay times respectively according to the time difference (see Figure 11, step 258 and paragraph [0065], “Further, step 258 comprises calculating the remaining equalization delays, i.e. the equalization delays EqD.sub.2(n) for all ONU.sub.n (n=1, . . . , N) are calculated. The equalization delays EqD.sub.2(n) for all ONU.sub.n (n=1, . . . , N) are given by EqD.sub.2(n)=EqD.sub.1(n)+.DELTA.d”); and
performing transmission between the OLT and the ONUs via the second network port according to the updated equalization delay times (see Figure 11, step 262 and paragraph [0068]).
Johansson does not expressively teach
adjusting the plurality of original round-trip times to a plurality of updated round-trip times respectively according to the time difference; performing transmission between the OLT and the ONUs via the second network port according to the updated round-trip times.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace performing the adjustment to equalization delay times to round-trip times as claimed to yield the predictable results of successfully ensuring data from the ONUs do not collide at the OLT (see Johansson paragraph [0057] which states that either the equalization delays or round-trip times can be stored. It is also well-known in the art that round trip time added to equalization delay for each ONU is a constant, and which could then be used to sub round trip delay for equalization delay in the equations shown in [0065]).
Method claim 9 teaches the same limitations of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, Johansson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches wherein after the plurality of original round-trip times are respectively adjusted to the plurality of updated round-trip times, the OLT transmits a plurality of updated downstream messages via the second network port to the ONUs (see Johansson Figure 11, step 262 and paragraph [0068]).
Claim(s) 2 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0038629 in view of Sakamoto et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0106958.
Regarding claim 2, Johansson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the OLT comprises
a shared memory, and the shared memory stores the original round-trip times (see Johansson Figure 5, shared memory 128 and paragraph [0044]).
Johansson does not expressively teach
a processing circuit, a first dynamic bandwidth assignment module and a second dynamic bandwidth assignment module, the shared memory communicates with the processing circuit, the first dynamic bandwidth assignment module and the second dynamic bandwidth assignment module.
However, Sakamoto in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an OLT (see Sasamoto Figure 5, OLT 200) comprising a shared memory (see Figure 5, memory 609) as taught in Johansson further comprising
a processing circuit (see Figure 5, CPU 608), a first dynamic bandwidth assignment module (see Figure 5, board 600 and Figure 6, which is an embodiment of boards 600-602, DBA processing part 707 and paragraph [0096]) and a second dynamic bandwidth assignment module (see Figure 5, board 601), the shared memory communicates with the processing circuit, the first dynamic bandwidth assignment module and the second dynamic bandwidth assignment module (see Figure 5, bus connecting memory 609 to each of CPU 608 and boards 600-601).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of an OLT with a processing circuit and DBA modules as taught in Sakamoto with the system taught in Johansson, the motivation being to allow centralized and variable control of the bandwidth in the system thereby increasing communication flexibility.
Regarding method claim 10, the claim recites the same structure noted above for claim 2 and then a contingent limitation as described above. However, since the precedent condition does not have to be met to practice the invention (i.e. an abnormality is not present), which is scenario covered by Johansson in view of Sakamoto, (i.e. the network acts normally, see Johansson paragraph [0027]), then the rest of the claim is already met by Johansson in view of Sakamoto.
Claims 11-15, as noted above, also only further limit a scenario where the abnormality is present. Therefore, Johansson in view of Sakamoto teaching a scenario when no abnormality occurs (see Johansson paragraph [0027]) also teaches these claims.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0038629 in view of Sakamoto et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0106958 and Sun et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/00451990.
Regarding claim 3, Johansson in view of Sakamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but does not expressively teach wherein, in response to the abnormality in the transmission via the first network port, the processing circuit instructs the first dynamic bandwidth assignment module to switch from an active mode to a standby mode, and instructs the second dynamic bandwidth assignment module to switch from the standby mode to the active mode.
However, Sun in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an OLT comprising a first network port and second network port (see Sun Figure 7, OLT with master PON port 14 and standby port 24), a first assignment module and a second assignment module (see Figure 7, MAC 12 and MAC 22), and a processing circuit (see Figure 7, control panel 01), wherein an abnormality in transmission via the first network port is determined (see Figure 6, steps 601 and 602) as taught in Johansson in view of Sakamoto wherein in response to the abnormality in the transmission via the first network port,
the processing circuit instructs the first assignment module to switch from an active mode to a standby mode, and instructs the assignment module to switch from the standby mode to the active mode (see paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine having one port and module in an active state and the others in a standby state as taught in Sun with the system taught in Johansson in view of Sakamoto, the motivation being to save on power and computational resources by not having both sets of devices active simultaneously.
Method claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Johansson in view of Sakamoto and Sun teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the second dynamic bandwidth assignment module in the active mode obtains the plurality of original round-trip times from the shared memory (see Sun paragraph [0078] as combined with Johansson Figure 5, MAC 124 and paragraph [0072]).
Method claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0038629in view Shraga et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,697,374.
Regarding claim 5, Johansson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein the downstream message comprises an upload start time of the ONU.
However, Shraga in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an OLT (see Shraga Figure 1, OLT 22 and column 7, “Reference is now made to FIG. 1 which is a schematic diagram of a passive optical network (PON) 20, according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention. PON 20 comprises an optical line terminal (OLT) 22 at the head end”) sending a downstream message (see Figure 2, downstream signal 70) to an ONU (see Figure 1, ONT 26a and column 10, “Each downstream frame 70 also comprises a payload section 76, wherein data from OLT 22 (from services transmitting on lines 28, 29, and 30) for transfer to ONTs 26 is entered”) for initiating measuring a round trip (see column 12, “Alternatively or additionally, the ranging signal is sent while network 20 is operative, such as when OLT 22 determines that a new ONT 26 has come on-stream, or when there has been an effective change in operating parameters of an existing ONT 26”) as taught in Johansson wherein
the downstream message comprises an upload start time of the ONU (see Figure 1, CLU 36 and column 10, “As described in more detail below, window start times and lengths are allocated within each virtual frame 72 so that windows 78 do not overlap, ensuring that there are no collisions of data from different ONTs at OLT 22. The allocations are determined by CLU 36, and are communicated to ONTs 26 in downstream frames 70”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of sending an upload start time to an ONU as taught in Shraga with the system taught in Johansson, the motivation being to attempt to minimize data collisions when performing the new round trip measurement.
Regarding claim 6, Johansson in view of Shraga teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches wherein, when the ONU receives the downstream message, the ONU responds to the second network port with the upstream message (see Shraga column 12, “OLT 22 determines the ranging time for each ONT 26 once ranging signal responses have been received from each ONT 26 operative in PON 20” and Johansson paragraph [0063]).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0038629in view of Sakamoto et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0106958; Sun et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/00451990; and Shraga et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,697,374.
Regarding claim 12, Johansson in view of Sun and Sakamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 10, but does not expressively teach wherein the downstream message comprises an upload start time of the ONU.
However, Shraga in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an OLT (see Shraga Figure 1, OLT 22 and column 7, “Reference is now made to FIG. 1 which is a schematic diagram of a passive optical network (PON) 20, according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention. PON 20 comprises an optical line terminal (OLT) 22 at the head end”) sending a downstream message (see Figure 2, downstream signal 70) to an ONU (see Figure 1, ONT 26a and column 10, “Each downstream frame 70 also comprises a payload section 76, wherein data from OLT 22 (from services transmitting on lines 28, 29, and 30) for transfer to ONTs 26 is entered”) for initiating measuring a round trip (see column 12, “Alternatively or additionally, the ranging signal is sent while network 20 is operative, such as when OLT 22 determines that a new ONT 26 has come on-stream, or when there has been an effective change in operating parameters of an existing ONT 26”) as taught in Johansson in view of Sun and Sakamoto wherein
the downstream message comprises an upload start time of the ONU (see Figure 1, CLU 36 and column 10, “As described in more detail below, window start times and lengths are allocated within each virtual frame 72 so that windows 78 do not overlap, ensuring that there are no collisions of data from different ONTs at OLT 22. The allocations are determined by CLU 36, and are communicated to ONTs 26 in downstream frames 70”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of sending an upload start time to an ONU as taught in Shraga with the system taught in Johansson in view of Sun and Sakamoto, the motivation being to attempt to minimize data collisions when performing the new round trip measurement.
Regarding claim 13, Johansson in view of Sun, Sakamoto, and Shraga teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches wherein, when the ONU receives the downstream message, the ONU responds to the second network port with the upstream message (see Shraga column 12, “OLT 22 determines the ranging time for each ONT 26 once ranging signal responses have been received from each ONT 26 operative in PON 20” and Johansson paragraph [0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the claim specifies that the OLT ceases data communication with any one ONU after an upstream message is received from an ONU via the second network port. Primary reference Johansson, however, specifically teaches ceasing communication between the OLT and ONUs once the abnormality is detected (see Johansson paragraph [0031]). As there are well-known reasons in the art for ceasing communication immediately (e.g. increased chances of data being lost in the system), one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Johansson in such a way to arrive at claim 7 without impermissible hindsight.
Claims 14 and 15 would be 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 and to include the suggestion made above in the “Contingent Limitations” section.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 if amended would recite similar allowable features as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights