DETAILED ACTION
The current office action is in response to the communication filed on 3/14/25.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the Objections to the Specification and the Claim Objections listed in the paragraph(s) below are corrected and the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Typically abbreviations/acronyms are used after an expansion is provided to the abbreviations/acronyms. However, in the Specification, “LTE,” “C-RAN,” “QoS,” “PDU,” “PDN,” etc. are used before they are expanded. It is suggested to use expansions before using their abbreviations/acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…the first protocol format…” in claim 1, line 11, should be “…the first management protocol format…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 11, line 13 and claim 7, line 12.
The limitation “…near the utility pole.” in claim 10, line 2, should be “…near the same utility pole.” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…into a second protocol format…” in claim 13, line 5, should be “…into [[a]] the second protocol format…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…includes a instructions…” in claim 15, line 2, should be “…includes [[a]] instructions…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the typographical/grammatical error in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…the second management protocol format.” in claim 20, line 7, should be “…the second protocol format.” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims are objected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Note: For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted based on the claim language suggested by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Hanneman, JR.” (US PGPUB 2018/0091251) (Hereinafter Hanneman).
With respect to claim 1, Hanneman teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
receiving, by a network device (Optical Location Module (IOLM) unit(s); Figs. 1-3; [0075]), information for remote network equipment (communication equipment 7; Figs. 1-3, [0075]), wherein the information is received via an optical fiber connection and in a first management protocol format (network manager 61 is configured to use control/management plane frames that are communicated between the Network Manager 61 and the IOLM units over the Optical Transport Network 22 for configuration and management; Figs. 1-3, [0102], [0107]-[0109]);
converting, by the network device, the information for the remote network equipment into a second protocol format (IOLM units convert optical signals that are supplied thereto into electrical data frames; Figs. 1-3, [0102], [0112]-[0113]);
forwarding, by the network device, the converted information to the remote network equipment via an Ethernet connection (IOLM unit(s) include one or more optical receivers that receive optical light signals representing ingress data frames and perform optical-to-electrical conversion into corresponding ingress electrical data frames for forwarding by the switch fabric to the communication equipment 7 connected thereto; Figs. 1-3, [0101], [0113]);
receiving, by the network device and via the Ethernet connection, a response from the remote network equipment in the second protocol format (IOLM 1 can also employ one or more connection I/O ports 8 (such as standard RJ-45 Ethernet connection ports) that provide connection to the external communication equipment 7. Packet management unit 3 of the respective IOLM Unit 1 can include a switch fabric that forwards or moves electrical data frames received by one or more link layer and physical devices (e.g., MAC/PHY devices) that are connected by the demarcation devices (connection port(s) 8) to the communication equipment 7 to one or more link layer and physical devices (e.g., MAC/PHY devices) that are connected to the optical transceiver(s) 2 of the IOLM unit 1 and vice versa; Figs. 1-3, [0101], [0105], [0107]);
converting, by the network device, the response into the first protocol format (transmit function of the dynamically-tuned optical transceiver(s) 2 performs electrical-to-optical conversion of the electrical data frames employing the optical channels/wavelengths specified by the configuration information for output to the Optical Transport Network 22; Figs. 1-3, [0110], [0115]); and
forwarding, by the network device, the response via the optical fiber connection (data frame processing operations of the packet management unit 3 of a respective IOLM unit 1 can logically partitioned into two groups. The first group involves the processing of electrical data plane frames communicated over the Optical Transport Network 22. Such electrical data plane frames encapsulate information generated by end-stations (e.g., which are part of the communication equipment 7) and are forwarded by the switching fabric of the packet management unit 3 of the respective IOLM unit 1 for delivery to the destination end station over the Optical Transport Network 22. The optical transceiver 2 performs a transmission (Tx) function that converts electrical data frame signals into optical signals that are transported on the Optical Transport Network 22; Fig. 1-3, [0102], [0107]).
With respect to claim 4, Hanneman teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the information includes monitoring instructions for the remote network equipment (processing control/management plane frames communicated over the Optical Transport Network 22. Examples of common control plane protocols include ARP and other protocols that glue the network together. Examples of common management plan protocols include Telnet, Secure Shell (SSH), TFTP, SNMP, FTP, NTP, and other management protocols; Figs. 1-3, [0107]).
The limitations of claims 11 and 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and these claims are rejected on that basis. Furthermore, Hanneman discloses a network device comprising communication interfaces and a processor (Figs. 1-3, [0141], [0144]) as recited in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2, 5, 12-13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanneman in view of “Lin” (US PGPUB 2010/0042710).
With respect to claim 2, Hanneman teaches the method of claim 1. Hanneman does not teach wherein the information includes configuration information with a command to power down the remote network equipment, and wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the network device and after the remote network equipment powers down, a reboot message via the Ethernet connection.
However, Lin teaches wherein the information includes configuration information with a command to power down the remote network equipment, and wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the network device and after the remote network equipment powers down, a reboot message via the Ethernet connection (for remotely diagnosing the computer system 10 by the console 30, an inquiry packet is transmitted from the console 30 to the controller 16 to inquire the computer system 10 about the power management state. In a case that the computer system 10 is at the S4 or S5 state, the embedded controller 16 is commanded to boot the computer system 10; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sending a rebooting message to a network equipment to Hanneman because Hanneman discloses communicating control instructions to a device ([0107]) and Lin suggests sending a rebooting message to a network equipment ([0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Lin in the Hanneman system in order to provide a more effective device management.
With respect to claim 5, Hanneman teaches the method of claim 1. Hanneman does not teach further comprising: sending, by the network device and to a management server, a request for the information for the remote network equipment, wherein the request uses the first management protocol format.
However, Lin teaches further comprising: sending, by the network device and to a management server, a request for the information for the remote network equipment, wherein the request uses the first management protocol format (a request is transmitted from a controller to a console and the console transmits a response to the controller and the controller provides the response to the computer system; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sending a request for information to Hanneman because Hanneman discloses communicating control instructions to a device ([0107]) and Lin suggests sending a request for information ([0027]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Lin in the Hanneman system in order to provide a more effective device management.
The limitations of claims 12 and 18 are rejected in the analysis of claims 2 and 5 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
With respect to claim 13, Hanneman as modified teaches the network device of claim 12. Hanneman further teaches wherein, when sending the message, the processor is further configured to: receive an instruction from a management server, wherein the instruction uses the first management protocol format (network manager 61 is configured to use control/management plane frames that are communicated between the Network Manager 61 and the IOLM units over the Optical Transport Network 22 for configuration and management; Figs. 1-3, [0102], [0107]-[0109]);
convert the instruction into a second protocol format (IOLM units convert optical signals that are supplied thereto into electrical data frames; Figs. 1-3, [0102], [0112]-[0113]); and
forward the converted instruction to the remote network equipment via the second communication interface (IOLM unit(s) include one or more optical receivers that receive optical light signals representing ingress data frames and perform optical-to-electrical conversion into corresponding ingress electrical data frames for forwarding by the switch fabric to the communication equipment 7 connected thereto; Figs. 1-3, [0101], [0113]).
Furthermore, Hanneman does not teach a reboot message/instruction.
However, Lin teaches a reboot message/instruction (for remotely diagnosing the computer system 10 by the console 30, an inquiry packet is transmitted from the console 30 to the controller 16 to inquire the computer system 10 about the power management state. In a case that the computer system 10 is at the S4 or S5 state, the embedded controller 16 is commanded to boot the computer system 10; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sending a rebooting message to a network equipment to Hanneman because Hanneman discloses communicating control instructions to a device ([0107]) and Lin suggests sending a rebooting message to a network equipment ([0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Lin in the Hanneman system in order to provide a more effective device management.
The limitations of claim 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 13 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 6, 8-9, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanneman in view of “Nakazato et al.” (US PGPUB 2024/0224070) (Hereinafter Nakazato).
With respect to claim 6, Hanneman teaches the method of claim 1. Hanneman does not teach wherein the information for the remote network equipment includes instructions for configuring or monitoring a virtual Distributed Unit (vDU) device.
However, Nakazato teaches wherein the information for the remote network equipment includes instructions for configuring or monitoring a virtual Distributed Unit (vDU) device (virtualized DU monitoring unit 510 requests the vCU to acquire and transmit a usage status value. The vCU 130 acquires information regarding the number of radio terminals or the traffic volume being served by a vDU; Figs, 4-5, [0076]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate monitoring a virtual Distributed Unit (vDU) device to Hanneman because Hanneman discloses communicating control instructions to a device ([0107]) and Nakazato suggests monitoring a virtual Distributed Unit (vDU) device ([0076]-[0077]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Nakazato in the Hanneman system in order to provide a more effective device monitoring/management.
With respect to claim 8, Hanneman teaches the method of claim 1. Hanneman does not teach wherein receiving the information for the remote network equipment includes receiving the information from a management subsystem over a packet- switched network.
However, Nakazato teaches wherein receiving the information for the remote network equipment includes receiving the information from a management subsystem over a packet-switched network (virtualized DU monitoring unit 510 requests the vCU to acquire and transmit a usage status value; Figs. 4-5, [0076]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate monitoring a remote device to Hanneman because Hanneman discloses communicating control instructions to a device ([0107]) and Nakazato suggests monitoring a remote device ([0076]-[0077]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Nakazato in the Hanneman system in order to provide a more effective device monitoring/management.
With respect to claim 9, Hanneman as modified teaches the method of claim 8. Nakazato further teaches further comprising: provisioning, by a network operator device, the management subsystem with the information for configuring the remote network equipment (a control unit 530 sends control commands to the vDU via a vCU and a monitoring unit; Figs. 4-5, [0076]-[0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate configuring a remote device to Hanneman because Hanneman discloses communicating control instructions to a device ([0107]) and Nakazato suggests monitoring a virtual Distributed Unit (vDU) device ([0076]-[0079]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Nakazato in the Hanneman system in order to provide a more effective device monitoring/management.
With respect to claim 15, Hanneman teaches the network device of claim 11. Hanneman does not teach wherein the information for the remote network equipment includes a instructions to provide monitoring information to a management system.
However, Nakazato teaches wherein the information for the remote network equipment includes a instructions to provide monitoring information to a management system (virtualized DU monitoring unit 510 requests the vCU to acquire and transmit a usage status value; Figs. 4-5, [0076]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate monitoring a remote device to Hanneman because Hanneman discloses communicating control instructions to a device ([0107]) and Nakazato suggests monitoring a remote device ([0076]-[0077]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Nakazato in the Hanneman system in order to provide a more effective device monitoring/management.
The limitations of claims 16 and 19 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanneman in view of “Baillargeon” (WO 2023/187649 A1) (Please refer to the Attached WO Reference).
With respect to claim 7, Hanneman teaches the method of claim 1. Hanneman does not teach wherein the information for the remote network equipment includes a firmware update.
However, Baillargeon teaches wherein the information for the remote network equipment includes a firmware update (transmitting a software upgrade request to a second network node; page 6, lines 19-27).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a firmware update to Hanneman because Hanneman discloses communicating control instructions to a device ([0107]) and Baillargeon suggests transmitting a firmware update (page 6, lines 19-27).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Baillargeon in the Hanneman system in order to provide a more effective device monitoring/management.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Soto et al. US 2021/0135757. Discloses managing optical layer network data communications.
Lamb et al. US 2016/0352532. Discloses registering a remote network device with a control device.
Baier et al. US 7,330,473. Discloses providing network data exchange between industrial control components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights