COMMUNICATION PROCESSING METHOD AND RELATED APPARATUS

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 April 14, 2025, December 08, 2025, and May 21, 2026, 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 20-38 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. Claims 1-19 have been canceled. No claims have been allowed. Priority Applicant's claim of priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202211084391.0, filed September 06, 2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), is acknowledged. Drawings The drawings are objected to because they contain inconsistencies with the written description and among the drawing figures that require correction. First, FIG. 7 labels the final upstream transmission operation as step “708,” whereas specification paragraph [0208] identifies the corresponding operation as step “707” and describes that operation as sending the preamble and payload at the recited transmission moments. The reference character for this operation is therefore inconsistent between FIG. 7 and the written description. Appropriate correction is required so that the same operation is identified consistently. If FIG. 7 is corrected, replacement drawing sheet 6/9 is required. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) and MPEP §§ 608.02(e), 608.02(p). Second, FIG. 3 labels the upstream BWMAP as “N* bytes,” whereas FIG. 2 labels the corresponding upstream BWMAP as “N*8 bytes,” and FIG. 3 depicts N allocation structures, each expressly labeled as 8 bytes. The FIG. 3 BWMAP-size legend is therefore internally inconsistent with FIG. 2 and with the individual allocation-structure sizes shown in FIG. 3. Appropriate correction of drawing sheet 3/9 is required, without introduction of new matter. 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. 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, 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. Specification The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) for the following specific internal cross-reference and dimensional-description informalities. Appropriate corrections must be consistent with the disclosure as filed and must not introduce new matter. Paragraph [0162] states: “For the fourth moment and the time interval, refer to related descriptions in step 608.” Step 608 describes generation of the preamble, whereas step 609 describes sending the preamble at the third moment and the payload at the fourth moment. Because the sentence specifically directs the reader to the fourth moment and its time interval, the cited step number appears inconsistent with the surrounding disclosure. Applicant is required to correct the cross-reference or otherwise clarify the intended reference. Paragraph [0173] states that “the first duration is equal to a unit rate of the PON system managed by the OLT multiplied by M,” and paragraph [0186] similarly states that “duration A is equal to a unit transmission rate of a PON system multiplied by 2R.” The disclosure characterizes the resulting quantities as durations while referring to multiplication by a transmission rate. Applicant is required to clarify the intended units and relationship between the bit quantity and the recited duration so that the specification consistently describes the disclosed timing quantities. Any correction must be supported by the application as filed and must not introduce new matter. Any amendment to the specification must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(b) and may not introduce new matter. These identified clarifications are limited to the incorrect cross-reference and the technical expression of duration and rate. Claim Objections Claim 23 is objected to because of inconsistent terminology. Claim 20 introduces “a first optical-electrical-optical converter (OEO)” and thereafter refers to “the first OEO.” Claim 23, while depending from claim 20, recites “before receiving, by a first OEO, the ranging packet....” Appropriate correction is required to make clear that the previously recited first OEO is intended, for example by changing “a first OEO” to “the first OEO,” if consistent with applicant’s intent. This is treated as a minor informality under MPEP § 608.01(n), form paragraph 7.29.01, and not as a rejection 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. The relevant art is the optical-communication field of passive optical networks (PONs), optical-electrical-optical (OEO) reach extension, ONU ranging, equalization-delay (EQD) determination, bandwidth-map (BWMAP) scheduling, burst-mode reception, clock/data recovery, buffering, re-timing, and upstream retransmission control. The references relied upon below address the same field of endeavor and the same timing, ranging, relay, buffering, and synchronization problems. The differences between the prior art and the claims, and the articulated reasons for the proposed combinations, are set forth claim by claim below. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-418 (2007); MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143. Claims 20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bakhru et al. (US 2012/0141139 A1) in view of Ma et al. (WO 2011/147248 A1), further in view of Wang et al. (CN 108242953 A). Claim 20 Claim 20 is directed to a PON communication-processing method performed by a first OEO in which an ONU ranging packet is received by the OEO and is subsequently sent toward the OLT after a controlled delay based on a jitter-elimination parameter, with the ranging packet being used by the OLT to determine the ONU equalization delay. The claim further requires that the parameter address the delay jitter introduced by the OEO itself. The cited combination teaches these limitations as follows. Bakhru et al. teach a frame-level optical-electrical-optical reach extender positioned between an OLT and ONUs, and expressly describe the ranging exchange passing through that OEO reach extender. “In an embodiment, the OLT sends a Range Request message in the downstream direction at time R1. The range request message is then received by Frame Level 3R OEO Reach Extender (OEO) at time R2. The message is received by ONUi at time R3. ONUj and ONUk receive this range request message at times R4 and R5, respectively. The ONUs are preferably configured and controlled so as to transmit a Range Response message immediately upon receiving the range request message from the OLT.” [Bakhru, ¶¶ [0090]-[0091], FIG. 10]. “Referring to FIG. 10, ONUi responds to the range request message with a range response message at time R6. The range response from ONUi is seen by the Reach Extender at time R9 and is received by the OLT at time R12. Since the Reach Extender conducts frame level regeneration, it has knowledge of the time at which a range request for a particular ONU leaves in the downstream direction and the time at which the corresponding range response is received while traveling in the upstream direction.” [Bakhru, ¶¶ [0092]-[0093], FIG. 10]. Thus, Bakhru expressly teaches the claimed first OEO receiving the ONU-originated ranging response and forwarding that ranging traffic toward the OLT. Because claim 20 expressly permits N to equal 1 and expressly recites the destination alternative “a next-level OEO ... or an OLT,” Bakhru’s single OEO reach extender directly satisfies the N=1 / send-to-OLT branch of those limitations. The claim does not require that N be greater than one. Bakhru further teach that the OEO itself introduces timing drift in the receive/process/transmit path, and that the OEO employs a drift-control buffer specifically to compensate that internally introduced timing variation. “An embodiment may include an upstream Drift Control module 230 to compensate for the drift introduced in the O/E conversion and CDR processes. This module employs a self-adjustable elastic buffer to compensate for the received drift.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0036]]. “The Drift-Control module 230 compensates for the drift introduced in the O/E conversion. The drift control module 230 can also correct for any drift introduced in the ODN fiber if needed.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0076]]. “The embodiment may include the ability to absorb the propagation delay differences (the drift) from different ONUs and buffering logic to correct for drift introduced by the O/E (optical to electrical) conversion. The drift control module can also compensate for the received drift due to the fiber length on a need basis.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0162]]. These passages teach the same physical phenomenon recited in claim 20: delay variation introduced by the OEO between receipt of data and onward transmission, and active compensation of that OEO-originated delay variation. Bakhru further teaches that the timing drift is a measurable timing quantity: “Drift may be found to exist when the PSYNC signal arrives early or late in relation to the initial PSYNC location. The drift is measured in number of bits.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0067]]. Bakhru also expressly teaches that the ranging packet received at the OLT is used to calculate the ONU equalization delay. “Based on the above measurements and calculations, the OLT is able to associate an Equalization Delay value for each ONU. Equalization Delay is the value by which the respective ONUs delay their data transmission operations in the upstream direction toward the OLT.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0097]]. “Equalization delay for individual ONUs is computed as follows: TEQDi = TEQD - RTDi.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0101]]. “These delay values of TEQDi, TEQDj, TEQDk are programmed in the respective ONUs ONUi, ONUj, and ONUk through downstream transmission of the PLOAM (Physical Layer Operations And Maintenance) message. Since the Frame Level 3R OEO Reach Extender operates at frame level re-generation, it has knowledge of the individual equalization delays of the various ONUs in the system.” [Bakhru, ¶¶ [0103]-[0104]]. The difference from Bakhru’s disclosure is the claimed selection of an intentional range-response delay from a jitter-elimination parameter and the expression of that selected delay as M bits or a corresponding duration. Ma and Wang provide the controlled-delay and quantitative-parameter teachings used to address that difference. Ma discloses a complementary timing-control technique in which an intermediate OTN node access device intentionally changes its response delay during the PON registration/ranging process, and the resulting controlled delay is used in the ranging interaction. In the proposed combination, this known intermediate-device delay technique is applied to the ONU-originated ranging response that Bakhru’s OEO already receives and forwards. “Step 312: After each predetermined number of sequence code response messages are sent, a fixed delay t is added to the time T1 of the normal response OLT, and after the N times fixed delay t is added, the response message of the OLT is received; N is an integer greater than or equal to 0. ... After adding N t’s, the OTN node access device receives the serial code configuration message of the OLT ... the finally obtained sequence code response delay time is T1 + N × t.” [Ma, p. 4, Step 312; FIG. 5]. “Step 313: Using T1 + N × t as the OLT delay, responding to the ranging request of the OLT, to obtain the distance between the working path and the protection path of the remote device and the optical line terminal.” [Ma, p. 4, Step 313]. [Ma English translation PDF p. 4/8]. Ma’s controlled-delay teaching is applied as a known timing technique, not as an anticipation of the claimed packet path. In particular, Ma places a programmable fixed delay in an intermediate PON-extension device during the ranging/registration interaction. Bakhru supplies the different packet path required by claim 20 an ONU-originated range response received at the OEO and forwarded toward the OLT and also identifies the OEO’s own O/E/CDR drift as a timing error requiring compensation. A person of ordinary skill would therefore have had a reason to apply Ma’s controlled-delay technique to Bakhru’s forwarding of the ONU ranging response so that the otherwise variable relay timing is converted into a deterministic correction interval that the OLT ranging calculation can account for. Wang teaches converting internal receive-to-transmit processing-time error into an explicit delay-adjustment parameter, calculating that parameter from ranging measurements, and causing the OLT to notify the network-side device of that delay parameter. “Step 203: according to the actual distance and measuring the distance calculation to obtain the time delay of the ONU adjusting parameter; Step 204: comparing the actual distance and time delay adjusting parameter informing the ONU.” [Wang, p. 7, second embodiment, Steps 203-204]. Wang expressly state: “Δ ikm can be converted to bit units according to the uplink speed” and describe that value as “calculated by the OLT after the OLT first ranging finished” before notifying the ONU in a Ranging Time message. [Wang, p. 8, third embodiment; quoted terminology retained] “generating a quiet time in the quiet time, the reserved field of the Ranging Time message or private ploam message, the actual distance and time delay adjusting parameter informing the ONU.” [Wang, p. 4, parameter-notification embodiment; original translation wording retained]. Wang supplies the complementary parameterization technique. Wang calculates an internal receive-to-transmit delay adjustment from ranging information, expresses the timing correction in time/bit units, and communicates the correction from the OLT. Applying that known parameterization to Bakhru’s expressly identified OEO receive-to-transmit drift would have allowed the selected controlled delay to track the relay timing error rather than remain an arbitrary constant. The function of Wang’s timing value remains the same compensating internal processing delay while the known PON device to which it is applied is Bakhru’s intermediate OEO reach extender. The resulting timing effect is predictable from Bakhru’s own ranging equation. Bakhru teaches EQD = TEQD - RTD. If the OEO intentionally adds a correction delay Δ to the ONU ranging response before forwarding it, the OLT observes RTD + Δ and calculates EQD′ = TEQD - (RTD + Δ) = EQD - Δ. The ONU therefore advances its subsequent upstream transmission by the selected correction amount. Bakhru’s OEO already includes a drift-control buffer and retiming logic; the earlier-arriving burst can accordingly be buffered and emitted according to the intended OLT-facing schedule. Thus the proposed combination uses the known controlled delay to cause the known EqD mechanism to create the exact timing headroom needed by the known OEO de-jitter buffer. The limitation-by-limitation correspondences are therefore: (1) the ONU-originated ranging response reaches the first OEO, Bakhru ¶¶ [0090]-[0093]; (2) the response proceeds from that OEO toward the OLT, Bakhru ¶ [0092] and FIG. 10; (3) OEO-originated timing drift is identified, measured in bits, and buffered, Bakhru ¶¶ [0036], [0067], [0076], and [0162]; (4) the OLT derives ONU EQD using the range-response timing, Bakhru ¶¶ [0097]-[0104]; (5) an intentional controlled delay during PON ranging/registration is taught by Ma ( p. 4, Steps 312-313); and (6) an OLT-calculated delay adjustment expressible in bit units and communicated through PON control signaling is taught by Wang (pp. 7-10). Applying the controlled delay and quantitative adjustment to Bakhru’s measurable OEO drift yields the claimed parameter-controlled forwarding operation and the predictable EqD timing effect explained above. Accordingly, the combination teaches receiving the ONU ranging response at a first OEO, forwarding it to the OLT after a controlled parameter-based delay, expressing the delay in a positive bit count or duration, using the ranging response at the OLT to determine EqD, and using the parameterized delay/drift compensation to eliminate OEO-originated receive-to-send jitter. Claim 20 therefore would have been obvious. Claim 31 Independent claim 31 is the apparatus counterpart of claim 20 and additionally requires a communication interface and at least one processor configured to perform the recited receiving and sending functions. Bakhru’s OEO reach extender has OEO ports together with upstream/downstream O/E and E/O converter paths for receiving and retransmitting optical PON traffic, and Bakhru further expressly discloses processor/communications-adapter implementation of the described methods and apparatus. The functional limitations are taught for the same reasons stated for claim 20. “Communications adapter 622 may couple computing system 600 to a local, wide-area, or global network 624. ... CPU 602 may be any general purpose CPU.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0183]]. “It is noted that the methods and apparatus described thus far and/or described later in this document may be achieved utilizing any of the known technologies, such as standard digital circuitry, analog circuitry, any of the known processors that are operable to execute software and/or firmware programs, programmable digital devices or systems, programmable array logic devices, or any combination of the above.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0184]]. The functional limitations of claim 31 are taught for the same detailed reasons set forth for claim 20: Bakhru supplies the OEO reach extender, range-response reception, OEO drift compensation, and OLT EqD calculation; Ma supplies controlled ranging-response delay at the intermediate reach-extension device; and Wang supplies the calculated internal-delay correction parameter, including bit-unit representation. Implementing those known functions using Bakhru’s expressly disclosed CPU and communications adapter is no more than use of a known processor/interface implementation for the functions already taught. Accordingly, claim 31 would have been obvious. Claims 21-23, 28-30 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bakhru et al. in view of Ma et al., further in view of Wang et al., and further in view of Kato et al. (JP 2019-009494 A). Claim 21 With respect to claim 21, all limitations of claim 20 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, and Wang except wherein claim 21 additionally expressly teaches receiving, by the first OEO, the jitter elimination parameter of the first OEO from the OLT. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: Kato expressly teaches an intermediate PON relay apparatus that is itself registered/ranged as an ONU-equivalent device and receives its own timing/equalization parameter from the OLT. “Here, a procedure in which the relay device 10 itself acquires its own equalization delay (EqD_r) through the registration process will be described. ... the relay apparatus 10 functions as the ONU (ONU_r) 30 and performs the ranging process with the OLT 20 ... Using these, the OLT 20 obtains the ONU_r equalization delay EqD_r ... and sends the obtained EqD_r to the ONU_r by sending a Ranging_Time PLOAM message.” [Kato, p. 16, “EqD_r acquisition procedure”; FIG. 11]. Kato removes any implementation uncertainty about whether an intermediate optical relay may receive an OLT-calculated timing parameter for itself: the relay is treated as ONU_r, is ranged by the OLT, and receives its own EqD_r. Wang teaches that the parameter sent by the OLT may specifically be an internal receive-to-transmit delay adjustment parameter. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply Wang’s internal-delay parameter to Kato’s OLT-to-relay parameter-delivery mechanism in Bakhru’s OEO because the parameter is being used to control the same intermediate-device timing error identified by Bakhru. The combination therefore teaches the additional limitation of claim 21. Claim 22 With respect to claim 22, all limitations of claim 21 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, Wang, and Kato except wherein claim 22 additionally expressly teaches the jitter elimination parameter being carried in a PLOAM message or an OMCI message. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: “Generating a quiet time in the quiet time, the reserved field of the Ranging Time message or private PLOAM message, the actual distance and time delay adjusting parameter informing ONU.” [Wang, p. 4, parameter-notification embodiment; see also p. 8]. “Using these, the OLT 20 obtains the ONU_r equalization delay EqD_r ... and sends the obtained EqD_r to the ONU_r by sending a Ranging_Time PLOAM message that is one of the PLOAM messages.” [Kato, p. 16, EqD_r acquisition procedure]. Claim 22 is written in the alternative (“PLOAM ... or OMCI”). The PLOAM alternative is therefore sufficient to meet the limitation. Wang expressly carries the delay-adjustment parameter in a private PLOAM/Ranging Time message, and Kato independently carries the relay’s own OLT-calculated EqD_r in a Ranging_Time PLOAM message. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the standard PLOAM control channel for the Bakhru/Ma/Wang OEO correction parameter because PLOAM is already the established GPON control path for timing and ranging parameters. Claim 22 therefore would have been obvious. Claim 23 With respect to claim 23, all limitations of claim 20 are taught by Bakhru, Ma and Wang except wherein claim 23 additionally expressly teaches receiving first BWMAP information containing at least one recited grant/timing field and determining from that BWMAP information that the ONU is to send a ranging packet. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: “The OLT 20 calculates the bandwidth allocated to each registered ONU 30, and describes the transmission start time and transmission permission time for each ONU 30 in the BWmap (bandwidth map) area in the FS header of the downstream frame. ... The BWmap area in the FS header is composed of one or a plurality of allocation structures. Each Allocation structure is labeled with a band allocation target identifier Alloc-ID. ... The upstream transmission permitted band is specified by StartTime and GrantSize described in the allocation structure.” [Kato, p. 11; FIG. 6]. “The OLT 20 transmits a downlink signal to the ONU 30 in the ranging state by placing a transmission permission grant called a ranging grant as one allocation structure in the BWmap. In the ranging grant, an ONU-ID of the target ONU 30 ... is designated as the Alloc-ID. The ONU_n returns a Registration PLOAM message ... using the transmission permission band specified by the ranging grant.” [Kato, p. 13, “Registration / ranging process”; FIG. 10]. Claim 23 requires only “at least one” of the listed BWMAP fields. Kato expressly discloses both Alloc-ID and StartTime, and expressly identifies a ranging grant in the BWMAP that designates the target ONU and causes that ONU to return the ranging/registration response. Thus, the relay examining the BWMAP can determine from the ranging-grant allocation that the identified ONU is to transmit the ranging response. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide this BWMAP parsing at Bakhru’s OEO because Bakhru already extracts upstream burst control information and requires knowledge of expected burst timing; Kato supplies a standard, deterministic way to identify that the upcoming grant is specifically a ranging grant. The combination therefore teaches every additional limitation of claim 23. Claim 28 The Graham difference is that the OLT-calculated correction is applied specifically to the intermediate OEO’s receive-to-send jitter. The cited teachings collectively address that difference: Bakhru identifies the OEO-specific drift, Wang supplies the OLT-side internal-delay computation, and Kato supplies the OLT-to-intermediate-relay timing-control path. “An embodiment may include an upstream Drift Control module 230 to compensate for the drift introduced in the O/E conversion and CDR processes. This module employs a self-adjustable elastic buffer to compensate for the received drift.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0036]]. “Step 203: according to the actual distance and measuring the distance calculation to obtain the time delay of the ONU adjusting parameter; Step 204: comparing the actual distance and time delay adjusting parameter informing the ONU.” [Wang, p. 7, Steps 203-204]. “Here, a procedure in which the relay device 10 itself acquires its own equalization delay (EqD_r) through the registration process will be described. ... the OLT 20 obtains the ONU_r equalization delay EqD_r ... and sends the obtained EqD_r to the ONU_r by sending a Ranging_Time PLOAM message.” [Kato, p. 16; FIG. 11]. Bakhru teaches the exact OEO-originated drift to be corrected. Wang teaches that an OLT may calculate an internal receive-to-transmit delay correction parameter from ranging measurements and notify the device of the calculated parameter. Kato teaches that an intermediate relay can itself be ranged by the OLT, treated as ONU_r, and receive an OLT-calculated timing value for the relay. A person of ordinary skill seeking centralized, consistent ranging and burst timing in Bakhru’s OEO PON would have had a reason to calculate the intermediate OEO’s delay-correction value at the OLT. Bakhru identifies the relay-specific O/E/CDR drift to be corrected; Wang demonstrates an OLT-side calculation of an internal-delay adjustment from ranging/timing information and delivery of that value; and Kato demonstrates that the OLT can range an intermediate relay as ONU_r, calculate a timing quantity for that relay, and transmit that quantity to the relay by Ranging_Time PLOAM. Using those known functions together would centralize the relay correction in the same OLT that controls ranging and EqD, thereby avoiding independent unsynchronized timing decisions at the relay and predictably coordinating the OEO correction with the PON’s upstream timing. The modification does not change Bakhru’s receive-regenerate-transmit principle of operation; it supplies the relay’s existing drift-control function with an OLT-calculated correction value. For claim 28, N may equal 1; therefore Bakhru’s single intermediate OEO embodiment satisfies the claimed OLT-to-ONU path through N levels of OEOs. Kato’s relay-as-ONU arrangement supplies an established OLT-to-relay control path, while Wang supplies the OLT-side internal-delay computation. The claimed “jitter elimination parameter” is thus the relay-specific correction value obtained by applying Wang’s known internal-delay calculation to Bakhru’s known OEO drift and delivering the result through Kato’s known OLT/relay signaling arrangement. Claim 28 would therefore have been obvious. Claim 29 With respect to claim 29, all limitations of claim 28 are taught by Bakhru, Wang, and Kato except wherein claim 29 additionally expressly teaches determining the jitter-elimination parameter by using the delay jitter of the first OEO as the jitter-elimination parameter, or by using the largest delay jitter among the N OEO levels. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: Because claim 29 is expressly written in the alternative, the first alternative is sufficient. Bakhru expressly identifies the OEO’s own O/E/CDR receive-path drift as the quantity to be compensated, while Wang teaches calculating a delay-adjustment parameter that corresponds to the device’s own internal timing error. “The Drift-Control module 230 compensates for the drift introduced in the O/E conversion. The drift control module 230 can also correct for any drift introduced in the ODN fiber if needed.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0076]]. “According to the actual distance and the measuring distance calculating the internal ONU delay adjustment parameter ... the actual distance and the inner time delay adjusting parameter to inform the ONU.” [Wang, pp. 3-4, second aspect]. Bakhru expressly identifies the OEO-originated drift as the error to be compensated and further states that the drift is measured in number of bits. Wang teaches deriving the device’s internal-delay adjustment from the measured timing discrepancy. Because claim 29 is written in the alternative, the first alternative is sufficient: using the first OEO’s own measured delay jitter as the correction parameter is the direct closed-loop implementation of the known drift-compensation function. No teaching of the “largest among N levels” alternative is required to meet the claim. Claim 29 therefore would have been obvious. Claim 30 With respect to claim 30, all limitations of claim 28 are taught by Bakhru, Wang, and Kato except wherein claim 30 additionally expressly teaches the OEO jitter-elimination parameter being carried in a PLOAM message or an OMCI message. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: “Generating a quiet time in the quiet time, the reserved field of the Ranging Time message or private PLOAM message, the actual distance and time delay adjusting parameter informing ONU.” [Wang, p. 4; see also p. 8]. The PLOAM alternative is expressly disclosed. Using the same standard ranging-control message for an OEO correction parameter would have been predictable because Kato treats the relay as an ONU for ranging and already receives its own EqD_r by Ranging_Time PLOAM. Claim 30 therefore would have been obvious. Claim 32 With respect to claim 32, all limitations of claim 31 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, and Wang except wherein claim 32 additionally expressly teaches the processor being further configured to receive the jitter-elimination parameter of the apparatus from the OLT. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: “The relay device 10’s own equalization delay (EqD_r) uses a value notified from the OLT 20 to the ONU function unit 15 of the relay device 10 through a ranging process for the relay device 10 as ONU_r.” [Kato, p. 16]. Kato therefore expressly teaches the processor-controlled relay receiving its own OLT-provided timing parameter. Wang teaches that the OLT-provided parameter may be an internal delay adjustment value. Applying the same control value to the Bakhru OEO processor/interface implementation would have been a predictable way to coordinate relay de-jittering with OLT ranging. Claim 32 would have been obvious. Claim 33 With respect to claim 33, all limitations of claim 32 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, Wang, and Kato except wherein claim 33 additionally expressly teaches the parameter being carried in a PLOAM or OMCI message. However, within analogous art, the cited reference(s) teach the new additional limitation, as follows: “The OLT 20 obtains the ONU_r equalization delay EqD_r ... and sends the obtained EqD_r to the ONU_r by sending a Ranging_Time PLOAM message that is one of the PLOAM messages.” [Kato, p. 16]. This directly supplies the claimed PLOAM alternative for the apparatus implementation, and using Wang’s internal-delay parameter in that known PLOAM path would have been obvious for the reasons stated above. Claim 33 would have been obvious. Claim 34 With respect to claim 34, all limitations of claim 31 are taught by Bakhru, Ma and Wang except wherein claim 34 additionally expressly teaches receiving first BWMAP information including at least one recited field and determining from that BWMAP information that the ONU is to send the ranging packet. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: “The OLT 20 transmits a downlink signal to the ONU 30 in the ranging state by placing a transmission permission grant called a ranging grant as one allocation structure in the BWmap. In the ranging grant, an ONU-ID of the target ONU 30 ... is designated as the Alloc-ID.” [Kato, p. 13]. Kato’s relay includes an FS-header analysis function that extracts BWMAP information; the ranging grant itself identifies the target ONU by Alloc-ID and signals that the ONU is to return the ranging response. Implementing this known BWMAP parsing in Bakhru’s processor-based OEO would have predictably allowed the apparatus to prepare its receiver/timing logic for the upcoming ranging burst. Claim 34 would have been obvious. Claims 24, 26, 27, 35, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bakhru et al. in view of Ma et al., Wang et al., and Kato et al., as applied above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2013/0230326 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2010/0111532 A1). Claim 24 With respect to claim 24, all limitations of claim 20 are taught by Bakhru, Ma and Wang except wherein claim 24 additionally expressly teaches receiving and buffering an ONU upstream burst payload at the first OEO, generating a preamble, and transmitting the regenerated preamble/payload at scheduled moments determined from BWMAP timing and an OEO-associated equalization delay. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: Hu expressly teaches a PON relay that receives ONU upstream data, removes/extracts overhead, buffers the payload, extracts the OLT bandwidth map, regenerates the upstream data stream, and sends the regenerated stream at the OLT-specified sending time. “After the ONU 38 is activated, the relay apparatus 32 ... extracts and buffers upstream bandwidth authorization information (also called a bandwidth map) that is sent by the OLT 30. The upstream bandwidth authorization information is used to indicate start time and end time of sending upstream data streams by the multiple ONUs 38, or indicate start time and duration of sending the upstream data streams by the multiple ONUs 38.” [Hu, ¶ [0031]]. “The relay apparatus 32 further extracts an overhead from the upstream data stream that is transmitted by each ONU 38, obtains the payload of each ONU through de-mapping from the upstream data stream whose overhead is extracted, and performs buffering respectively. The relay apparatus 32 further reorganizes the payload of each ONU according to the newest bandwidth authorization information that is sent by the OLT 30, inserts a corresponding overhead to generate a new upstream data stream, and sends it upstream to the OLT 30 when the data sending time that is specified by the OLT 30 arrives.” [Hu, ¶¶ [0032]-[0033]]. “The decapsulating module 325 obtains a payload through de-mapping from the upstream data stream whose overhead is extracted, and sends it to the processing module 322 to store it into the buffer 326. The data stream regenerating module 328 reorganizes the payload that is stored in the buffer 326 according to newest bandwidth authorization information that is sent by the OLT 30, inserts a corresponding overhead to generate a new upstream data stream.” [Hu, ¶¶ [0043]-[0044]]. Chen expressly teaches an OEO/3R extender that buffers an incoming upstream frame, generates/compensates the preamble, and transmits the preamble-compensated frame to the OLT using a stable retiming clock. “The preamble buffering and compensating module 704 is adapted to buffer the data frame carrying delimiter data received from the delimiter matching module 703, insert a compensation preamble at a preamble insertion location determined by the delimiter matching module 703, and send the data frame inserted with the compensation preamble to the E/O amplification module 705 according to the downstream retiming clock obtained from the retiming module 707.” [Chen, ¶ [0049], FIG. 7]. “A preamble generating rule is preset in the preamble buffering and compensating module 704 ... Once the preamble buffering and compensating module 704 determines the preamble location of the buffered data frame, a preamble is generated according to the set preamble generating rule, so as to overwrite the preamble at the preamble location of the buffered and output data frame.” [Chen, ¶ [0066]]. Kato supplies the specific relay-side use of BWMAP StartTime together with the relay’s own EqD. “In the relay apparatus 10 of the present invention, each upstream burst signal is relayed by combining the contents of the BWmap acquired by snooping the downstream frame to each downstream ONU 30 and the equalization delay (EqD_r) value of the relay apparatus 10 itself. The time of arrival at the optical transceiver 10B of the apparatus 10 is calculated in advance. The relay device 10’s own equalization delay (EqD_r) uses a value notified from the OLT 20 to the ONU function unit 15 of the relay device 10 through a ranging process for the relay device 10 as ONU_r.” [Kato et al., JP 2019-009494 A, English translation PDF pp. 15-16]. “The BWmap of the downstream frame from the OLT 20 contains the BW grant addressed to the ONU_n. ... the transmission start time is StartTime_n. ... the FS header analysis unit 12B analyzes the FS header of the downstream frame and extracts BW grant addressed to ONU_n. From this, the transmission permission time StartTime_n to ONU_n can be obtained. Therefore, when the equalization delay EqD_r of the relay device 10 ... and the reaction time RspTime_r of the relay device (ONU_r) are used, the time when the upstream burst signal from the ONU_n passes through the relay device 10 Tru_n is obtained.” [Kato, p. 17, “Upstream burst signal arrival time calculation procedure”; FIG. 13]. The cited references provide the claim-24 sequence through complementary relay functions. Hu receives ONU upstream data, extracts and buffers the payload, regenerates the upstream stream, and withholds transmission until the OLT-specified sending time. Chen provides the OEO implementation that buffers the recovered frame and generates/inserts a replacement preamble before retransmission. Kato makes the relay aware of both the downstream ONU BWMAP StartTime and the relay’s own EqD_r. Although Kato uses those values to predict burst arrival at the relay, those same already-available relay timing inputs are directly pertinent to Hu’s OLT-controlled output scheduler. Supplying Hu’s scheduler with Kato’s StartTime/EqD_r information would permit the relay to determine the scheduled outgoing payload moment, and Chen’s generated preamble would be transmitted immediately before that payload moment. Thus the receive moment precedes the scheduled payload-release moment, the preamble occupies the third-to-fourth-moment interval, and the payload is released at the fourth moment according to OLT grant timing corrected for the relay timing quantity. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hu and Chen with the Bakhru/Ma/Wang/Kato OEO because Bakhru already requires frame-level regeneration and drift compensation, Hu supplies the known architecture for decapsulating and buffering ONU payload then regenerating it according to the OLT bandwidth map, and Chen supplies the known OEO preamble-regeneration/retiming implementation needed to transmit a clean upstream burst. Kato then supplies the precise relay-aware BWMAP/EqD timing relationship. The combination predictably ensures that early/variable incoming ONU bursts are decoupled from the OEO output timing, that the OEO can regenerate a complete preamble, and that the outgoing burst is aligned to the OLT’s expected schedule. Claim 24 therefore would have been obvious. Claim 26 With respect to claim 26, all limitations of claim 24 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, Wang, Kato, Hu, and Chen except wherein claim 26 additionally expressly teaches setting the size of the first OEO buffer based on the jitter-elimination parameter of the first OEO. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: “An embodiment may include an upstream Drift Control module 230 to compensate for the drift introduced in the O/E conversion and CDR processes. This module employs a self-adjustable elastic buffer to compensate for the received drift.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0036]]. Bakhru expressly teaches a “self-adjustable elastic buffer” whose purpose is to compensate the amount of received OEO drift, while Wang supplies a quantified internal-delay correction value. The buffer amount needed to absorb early/late data is therefore a result-effective design quantity: insufficient usable capacity cannot absorb the expected timing excursion, while capacity beyond the correction requirement is unnecessary. It would have been a predictable implementation to set the usable buffer size/depth from the same parameter that represents the maximum timing variation to be absorbed. This applies the known parameter to the known self-adjusting drift buffer for its established function and yields the additional limitation of claim 26. Claim 27 With respect to claim 27, all limitations of claim 24 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, Wang, Kato, Hu, and Chen except wherein claim 27 additionally expressly teaches receiving the second BWMAP information containing the ONU payload StartTime and determining the fourth moment based on that StartTime and the first OEO EqD. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: “The OLT 20 calculates the bandwidth allocated to each registered ONU 30, and describes the transmission start time and transmission permission time for each ONU 30 in the BWmap ... The upstream transmission permitted band is specified by StartTime and GrantSize described in the allocation structure.” [Kato, p. 11; FIG. 6]. “In the relay apparatus 10 ... each upstream burst signal is relayed by combining the contents of the BWmap acquired by snooping the downstream frame to each downstream ONU 30 and the equalization delay (EqD_r) value of the relay apparatus 10 itself.” [Kato, p. 16]. “The relay apparatus 32 further reorganizes the payload of each ONU according to the newest bandwidth authorization information that is sent by the OLT 30 ... and sends it upstream to the OLT 30 when the data sending time that is specified by the OLT 30 arrives.” [Hu, ¶ [0033]]. Kato therefore teaches both inputs recited by claim 27 BWMAP StartTime and an EqD belonging to the relay and Hu teaches using the OLT bandwidth authorization to determine when the buffered payload is actually sent. One of ordinary skill would have combined those teachings to calculate the relay’s scheduled output moment from the OLT StartTime with the relay’s own EqD/timing correction so that the regenerated burst reaches the OLT in the expected slot. This is the same timing-control purpose for which Kato uses those values and for which Hu delays transmission until the OLT-specified sending time. Claim 27 therefore would have been obvious. Claim 35 With respect to claim 35, all limitations of claim 31 are taught by Bakhru, Ma and Wang, except wherein claim 35 additionally expressly teaches the processor being configured to receive and buffer an upstream burst payload, generate a preamble, and transmit the regenerated preamble/payload at scheduled moments based on BWMAP timing and an EqD corresponding to the apparatus. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: The apparatus limitations of claim 35 are the processor-implemented counterpart of claim 24. Hu expressly discloses a relay apparatus having processing, receiving, buffering, bandwidth-map extraction, data-stream regeneration, and sending modules, and Chen expressly discloses an OEO/3R apparatus having a preamble buffering/compensation module and retiming logic. “The relay apparatus 32 includes a processing module 322, an overhead extracting module 324, a decapsulating module 325, a buffer 326, a data stream regenerating module 328, a sending module 330, a receiving module 332, and a bandwidth map extracting module 334.” [Hu, ¶ [0036], FIG. 4]. “The preamble buffering and compensating module 704 is adapted to buffer the data frame ... insert a compensation preamble ... and send the data frame inserted with the compensation preamble ... according to the downstream retiming clock.” [Chen, ¶ [0049], FIG. 7]. For the timing portion, Kato expressly teaches that the relay snoops the BWMAP, obtains the downstream ONU StartTime, and combines the BWMAP with the relay’s own EqD_r to calculate the relay timing, while Hu transmits the regenerated payload at the OLT-specified sending time. Implementing these already-disclosed relay functions in the processor/interface apparatus of claim 31 is a straightforward hardware/software implementation choice expressly contemplated by Bakhru. Therefore, claim 35 would have been obvious for the same detailed reasons set forth for claim 24, applied to the apparatus form. Claim 37 With respect to claim 37, all limitations of claim 35 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, Wang, Kato, Hu, and Chen except wherein claim 37 additionally expressly teaches the processor being configured to set the buffer size based on the jitter-elimination parameter of the apparatus. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: “This module employs a self-adjustable elastic buffer to compensate for the received drift.” [Bakhru, ¶ [0036]]. For the same reasons stated for claim 26, Bakhru’s processor-implementable OEO uses a self-adjustable elastic buffer to compensate drift, and Wang provides a quantified internal-delay correction value. A person of ordinary skill would have configured the processor to set the usable buffer size/depth from the anticipated maximum drift represented by that value so that the apparatus retains sufficient early-arriving data for scheduled retransmission without unnecessary storage. Claim 37 therefore would have been obvious. Claim 38 With respect to claim 38, all limitations of claim 35 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, Wang, Kato, Hu, and Chen except wherein claim 38 additionally expressly teaches the processor receiving the second BWMAP StartTime and determining the fourth moment based on that StartTime and the EqD corresponding to the apparatus. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: “The FS header analysis unit 12B ... extracts ... the BWmap and EqD values addressed to the downstream ONU 30 and the relay device 10 ...” [Kato, pp. 14-15]. “In the relay apparatus 10 ... each upstream burst signal is relayed by combining the contents of the BWmap ... and the equalization delay (EqD_r) value of the relay apparatus 10 itself.” [Kato, p. 16]. These passages expressly teach the processor-accessible BWMAP and relay EqD information, and Hu teaches transmitting the regenerated buffered payload at the OLT-specified sending time. A processor implementing the combined relay would therefore calculate the outgoing transmission moment from those same timing inputs. Claim 38 would have been obvious. Claims 25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bakhru et al. in view of Ma et al., Wang et al., Kato et al., Hu et al., and Chen et al., and further in view of ITU-T G.984.6 (2008), Amendment 1 (11/2009). Claim 25 With respect to claim 25, all limitations of claim 24 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, Wang, Kato, Hu, and Chen except wherein claim 25 additionally expressly teaches the time interval between receipt of the upstream burst at the second moment and transmission of the payload at the fourth moment being less than or equal to the first duration. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: The prior-art combination teaches all of the timing conditions that make the claimed bound a result-effective design parameter. Bakhru identifies OEO timing drift and compensates it with a self-adjustable elastic buffer; Wang expresses the relevant internal-delay correction as a quantitative time/bit value; Hu buffers the upstream payload and releases it at the OLT-specified transmission time; and ITU-T G.984.6 confirms that an OEO burst converter buffers each incoming burst and re-times it to the output clock. The amount of advance/residence time that the buffer must absorb therefore directly affects whether the relay can perform the intended de-jittering and scheduled retransmission. “The upstream frame is depicted in Figure 6a. It is important to note that the incoming upstream bursts each have a unique and independent bit clock phase. The BM-to-CM converter produces at its output a signal that has a single continuous bit clock phase. Therefore, the BM-to-CM converter must buffer each incoming burst of data and re-time it with its output clock.” [ITU-T G.984.6, p. 10, discussion of Fig. 6a]. “The gap detector will require a logical buffer to store the upstream data to compensate for the non-zero response time of the gap detector, so as to avoid long gaps of all-zero data.” [ITU-T G.984.6, PDF p. 10]. Bakhru independently teaches a self-adjustable elastic buffer whose function is to absorb the amount of received drift, and Wang teaches a delay-adjustment parameter that quantifies the timing correction. Once the selected first duration represents the correction window for the expected OEO delay variation, one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to constrain the early-arrival/buffered interval to no more than that window. Allowing the second-to-fourth-moment interval to exceed the correction window would require the buffer and retiming scheduler to absorb a timing excursion larger than the value selected to characterize and correct the relay jitter, risking buffer overrun or release outside the intended OLT-facing schedule. Selecting the workable upper bound at the known compensation limit is a predictable optimization of a timing variable already recognized by the art as affecting drift compensation and retiming. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). Accordingly, using the selected first duration as the maximum permitted second-to-fourth-moment interval coordinates the ranging correction with the relay’s buffer/retiming capacity: actual early arrival is absorbed within the correction window, while the payload is released at the deterministic scheduled moment. The result is the claimed relation that the interval is less than or equal to the first duration. This is a routine bounded-timing implementation of the combined de-jitter architecture and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because each cited component performs the same timing, buffering, or retransmission function for which it is taught. Claim 25 therefore would have been obvious. Claim 36 With respect to claim 36, all limitations of claim 35 are taught by Bakhru, Ma, Wang, Kato, Hu, and Chen except wherein claim 36 additionally expressly teaches the apparatus being configured so that the interval between the second and fourth moments is less than or equal to the first duration. However, within analogous art, the cited reference teaches the new additional limitation, as follows: Claim 36 is the apparatus counterpart of claim 25. ITU-T G.984.6 teaches buffering and re-timing each incoming burst to an output clock; Bakhru teaches a processor-implementable self-adjusting buffer that compensates OEO drift; Wang supplies the quantitative correction value; and Hu supplies scheduled release of the buffered payload. The residence/advance interval is therefore a result-effective timing variable. For the same reason stated for claim 25, a person of ordinary skill would have configured the processor to limit the second-to-fourth-moment interval to no more than the selected correction duration so that the buffered timing excursion remains within the de-jitter window and the payload can be released in the intended OLT slot. Selecting that known workable boundary would have been routine optimization under MPEP § 2144.05(II), with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 36 therefore would have been obvious. 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