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 .
This is the initial Office Action based on the application filed 02/07/2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination and have been considered below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108632886A (“CN ’886”) in view of WO 2021/047228 A1 (“WO ’228”), and further in view of WO 2022/012530 A1, published as EP 4 184 824 A1 (“WO ’530/EP ’824”).
Claimed interpretations:
an inner code block includes a client or underlying encoded block that is mapped into a FlexE carrying structure;
an outer code block includes a block of the FlexE transport stream or a block resulting from conversion, transcoding, multiplexing, or secondary encoding;
an outer block “carries data” of an inner block when its payload position is assigned to all or part of that inner block;
“restoring” includes extracting, demapping, reassembling, reconstructing, or identifying the corresponding inner-block position; and
“setting … as an E code block” includes replacing, designating, marking, or outputting the corresponding block as an IEEE 802.3 error-control /E/ block.
Claim 1: CN ’886 teaches a method, applied to a first communication apparatus using a flexible Ethernet (FlexE) fine granularity technology, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining a first fine granularity basic unit (fgBU) comprising a plurality of first outer code blocks (e.g., CN ’886 teaches receiving a FlexE code-block stream through one or more physical channels. It explains that the physical channels transport 66B blocks, that groups of such blocks form FlexE frames, and that the blocks are organized into time slots and sub-slots. Paragraphs [0063]–[0065] describe a FlexE frame formed from repeated 66B block positions and a sub-calendar containing positions that carry 66B encoded blocks. Under BRI, the received fine-granularity portion of that FlexE code-block stream constitutes the claimed fine-granularity carrying unit, and the 66B blocks constituting it are the claimed outer code blocks), wherein the first outer code block carries first data of a first inner code block (e.g., CN ’886 teaches mapping client-service encoded blocks into FlexE sub-slot positions. Paragraphs [0042]–[0047] state that a client service has multiple encoded blocks and that those blocks are mapped into FlexE sub-slots. Paragraphs [0072]–[0076] specifically teach obtaining multiple 66B client blocks and mapping them into positions corresponding to FlexE sub-slot 2.1. Under BRI, the mapped client-service block is an inner block and the FlexE transport block position carrying its data is an outer block);
restoring, based on the first fgBU, the first inner code block (e.g., CN ’886 teaches receiver-side recovery of the client-service code blocks. The receiver: receives a code-block stream; performs delimiting, alignment, and reordering to restore the proper 66B stream; identifies the FlexE overhead; extracts the sub-slot overhead; and obtains the client-service 66B blocks from the indicated sub-slot. See paragraphs [0055]–[0062] and [0077]–[0081]. This constitutes restoring an inner code block from the received fine-granularity carrying structure).
CN ’886 does not expressly teach:
naming the relevant carrying structure an “fgBU”;
that the unit specifically contains:
an outer S code block,
a plurality of outer D code blocks, and
an outer E code block;
that the outer E code block previously carried data of a corresponding client or inner block;
preserving the outer-error-to-inner-block correspondence through demapping; or
setting the corresponding restored inner block as an inner E block.
However, WO ’228 addresses conversion of code blocks between first and second code-block formats, including 64B/66B and 256B/257B processing. It recognizes that an illegal or erroneous code block can lose its error identity during format conversion and teaches encoding or transforming the illegal-block information so that the corresponding block can be identified or restored after inverse conversion. The abstract states that:
N first code blocks correspond to M second code blocks;
illegal blocks in a first code-block stream are identified;
the illegal blocks are converted into target code blocks during format conversion; and
the corresponding illegal blocks can be recovered or recognized after reverse conversion.
The detailed embodiments on pages 13–24 describe:
first and second code-block streams;
64B/66B and 256B/257B conversion;
detecting illegal blocks or illegal synchronization/header patterns;
substituting specially selected target blocks; and
inverse conversion at a receiving node to recover the corresponding illegal-block state.
WO ’228 therefore teaches the missing correspondence-preservation principle: when data from one block representation is carried in another block representation, an error indication associated with the carrying or converted block is preserved so that the corresponding reconstructed block is recognized as erroneous. WO ’228 also discusses ordinary 64B/66B data and control block types, including data blocks and control blocks, and detects blocks having illegal synchronization headers or illegal control-block types. See the discussion and block-format examples on pages 9–12 and 17–22.
Furthermore, WO ’530/EP ’824 teaches determining 64B/66B blocks having uncorrectable errors in MTN, Ethernet, or FlexE and either replacing every block of an affected codeword with error-control blocks; or replacing each individually invalid 64B/66B block with an error-control block. See paragraphs [0006]–[0010]. The reference expressly teaches that:
an invalid block may have synchronization header 0b00 or 0b11;
an error-control block is the /E/ block defined in IEEE 802.3; and
replacement may be performed in the FlexE physical layer.
See paragraphs [0013]–[0018]. WO ’530/EP ’824 further teaches that four 64B/66B blocks are converted into one 256B/257B structure and later restored as four constituent 64B/66B blocks. When FEC decoding fails, some or all of the constituent blocks are marked invalid and replaced with error-control blocks. See paragraphs [0058]–[0064]. It further explains that replacing the invalid block with an E block prevents an erroneous stream from contaminating valid streams mapped into the same transmitted block or calendar structure. See paragraph [0021].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify CN ’886’s FlexE sub-slot mapping and receiver-side recovery using WO ’228’s teaching of preserving the correspondence of an illegal or erroneous block through block-format conversion and WO ’530/EP ’824’s teaching of substituting an IEEE /E/ block for the affected reconstructed block in order to:
preserve error status through FlexE demapping;
prevente corrupted client data from being treated as valid;
prevente error propagation to other multiplexed streams; and
use the standardized IEEE 802.3 /E/ block for its known purpose.
Claim 2: CN ’886 , WO ’228, and WO ’530/EP ’824 teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first inner code block corresponds to a first sub-slot, wherein setting the first inner code block as the first inner E code block comprises setting a plurality of inner code blocks corresponding to the first sub-slot as inner E code blocks, and wherein the plurality of inner code blocks comprises the first inner code block. For instance, CN ’886 expressly teaches assigning multiple client-service encoded blocks to FlexE sub-slots. Paragraphs [0047], [0059]–[0060], and [0072]–[0080] describe sub-slots carrying multiple 66B encoded blocks and receiver-side extraction of those blocks. Furthermore, WO ’530/EP ’824 teaches both: replacing each individually invalid block; and replacing all blocks in an affected codeword with E blocks. See paragraphs [0052]–[0064]. Therefore, It would have been obvious to replace the plurality of blocks associated with an affected sub-slot when the error makes the data assigned to that sub-slot unreliable.
Claim 3: CN ’886 , WO ’228, and WO ’530/EP ’824 teach the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first outer code blocks further comprises a termination (T) code block, and wherein the first outer E code block is a first outer D code block in which an error occurs. For instance, WO ’228 discusses standard 64B/66B data and control blocks and determining whether a block has a legal or illegal block format or type. And WO ’530/EP ’824 teaches that an invalid 64B/66B block, including a block having an invalid header or block type, is replaced with an E block. See paragraphs [0040]–[0049] and [0061]–[0063]. Thus, a payload D block suffering an error would be detected as invalid and represented as an E block. The inclusion of a conventional termination/control block in the stream is part of the ordinary 64B/66B framing taught by WO ’228.
Claim 4: CN ’886 , WO ’228, and WO ’530/EP ’824 teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first outer E code block is a termination (T) code block in which an error occurs. For instance, WO ’228 teaches control-block processing and detecting illegal control-block types. WO ’530/EP ’824 expressly teaches checking the control-block type and replacing a block having an invalid control-block type with an E block. See paragraphs [0061]–[0063]. A T block is a control block and a transmission error affecting its header or block-type field would cause it to be treated as invalid and replaced with an E block.
Claim 5: CN ’886 , WO ’228, and WO ’530/EP ’824 teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication apparatus is a fine-grained service switching node, and wherein the method further comprises sending the first inner E code block to a second communication apparatus. For instance, CN ’886 teaches transmitting mapped client-service blocks from a first communication apparatus to a receiving apparatus through one or more physical channels. See paragraphs [0052]–[0053] and [0076]–[0077]. And WO ’530/EP ’824 teaches that an E block can be forwarded safely and integrated with other streams without contaminating error-free streams. See paragraph [0021]. Furthermore, WO ’228 depicts intermediate MTN/FlexE nodes receiving, converting, processing, and transmitting code-block streams through the network; see the network and processing arrangements on pages 13–18. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an intermediate fine-granularity processing or switching node to forward the reconstructed E block to the next apparatus.
Claim 6: CN ’886 , WO ’228, and WO ’530/EP ’824 teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication apparatus is a fine-grained service sink node, and wherein the method further comprises sending the first inner E code block to an Ethernet frame client signal restoration module of the first communication apparatus. For instance, CN ’886 teaches a receiving apparatus that obtains client-service blocks from FlexE sub-slots after receiving and aligning the FlexE code-block stream. See paragraphs [0055]–[0062] and [0077]–[0081]. Besides, Passing the recovered client code-block stream to the ordinary client-data reconstruction function would have been inherent in or at least an obvious continuation of CN ’886’s client-service recovery. Furthermore, WO ’530/EP ’824 teaches retaining the E-block indication so that downstream processing does not treat erroneous data as valid. See paragraph [0021].
Claim 7: CN ’886 , WO ’228, and WO ’530/EP ’824 teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first outer E code block further carries second data of a second inner code block, and wherein the method further comprises:restoring, based on the first fgBU, the second inner code block; and setting the second inner code block as a second inner E code block. For instance, WO ’228 teaches conversion relationships in which a group of first-format blocks corresponds to a different number of second-format blocks. Its 64B/66B-to-256B/257B embodiments demonstrate that one block or converted structure may contain or correspond to portions of multiple original blocks. Besides, WO ’530/EP ’824 teaches that one invalid block in a converted group can affect multiple reconstructed constituent blocks and teaches replacing either each invalid block or all blocks in the affected group with E blocks. See paragraphs [0058]–[0064]. Thus, it would have been obvious to mark each reconstructed inner block whose data overlaps the erroneous outer block as E.
Claim 8: CN ’886 , WO ’228, and WO ’530/EP ’824 teach the method of claim 7, wherein the first communication apparatus is a fine-grained service switching node, and wherein the method further comprises sending the second inner E code block to a second communication apparatus. For the reasons stated for claims 5 and 7, forwarding each affected reconstructed E block to the next apparatus would have been obvious. WO ’530/EP ’824 expressly teaches safe forwarding of E blocks.
Claim 9: CN ’886 , WO ’228, and WO ’530/EP ’824 teach the method of claim 7, wherein the first communication apparatus is a fine-grained service sink node, and wherein the method further comprises sending the second inner E code block to an Ethernet frame client signal restoration module of the first communication apparatus. For the reasons stated for claims 6 and 7, passing each affected reconstructed E block to the downstream client restoration processing would have been obvious.
Claim 10: CN ’886 , WO ’228, and WO ’530/EP ’824 teach the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first outer code blocks further comprises a second outer E code block, wherein the second outer E code block is a second outer D code block in which an error occurs, wherein the second outer E code block carries third data of a third inner code block, and wherein the method further comprises: restoring, based on the first fgBU, the third inner code block; and setting the third inner code block as a third inner E code block. For instance, CN ’886 teaches a received stream containing numerous 66B transport positions and numerous mapped client encoded blocks. Besides, WO ’530/EP ’824 teaches that multiple blocks of the same FEC codeword may be invalid and that multiple invalid blocks may be replaced with E blocks. See paragraphs [0058]–[0064]. Therefore, Applying the same known error-handling operation to a second erroneous D block would have been a predictable repetition of the first operation.
Claims 11-20 are directed to apparatus and computer program product embodiments that correspond to the method claims of claims 1-10. Accordingly, claims 11-20 are rejected on same grounds as claims 1-10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUERRIER MERANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 Am - 5:00 PM.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/GUERRIER MERANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111 8/4/2026
Prosecution Insights