Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/620,134

Method and Device for IP Address Allocation and Topology Management in DAS System, and Storage Medium

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 17, 2021
Examiner
PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
Art Unit
2178
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Sunwave Communications Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
5y 4m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
96 granted / 232 resolved
-13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 4m
Avg Prosecution
142 currently pending
Career history
374
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 232 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 1. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12-13, 15-17, and 20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, and 15 are amended as filed on 12/05/2023. 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 12-13, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rondeau (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0375721 A1), hereinafter Rondeau, in view of Mishra et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2016/0285968 A1), hereinafter Mishra, and in further view of Chandra et al. (Patent No. US 9,252,970 B2), hereinafter Chandra. 2. With respect to claims 1 and 12, Rondeau taught a method for Internet Protocol address allocation in a distributed antenna system (0006), the distributed antenna system comprising a host and multiple slaves connected to the host (0006, where the master unit is the host and the one or more remote devices are the slaves. See also 0037, the host numbers implicitly teaches the presence of a host), and the method comprising: configuring one or more port numbers for one or more communication ports of the host (0036, where the configuring is assigning an IP address based on the assigned port number in accordance with the applicant’s specification 0062, where the expansion unit techniques also apply to the remote antennas in accordance with 0046); wherein the next slave comprises any slave except the first slave (0048, where the different network interfaces teaches the different port numbers); and determining an IP address of a corresponding slave according to a network segment number of the host and the address number of the slave (0047). However, Rondeau did not explicitly state that the address assignment was with respect to multi-level slave devices. On the other hand, Mishra did teach that the address assignment was with respect to multi-level slave devices (0006, the unique addresses). Both of the systems of Rondeau and Mishra are directed towards managing slave devices that are connected to hosts/masters and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Rondeau, to utilize different level slave devices, as taught by Mishra, in order to more efficiently manage slave devices. However, Rondeau did not explicitly state using, by a first-level slave directly connected to the host, the port number of a port, to which the a first-level slave is connected, of the host as an address number of the first-level slave, and configuring, by the first-level slave, unique port numbers for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the first-level slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the first-level slave based on the address number of the first-level slave; using, by a next-level slave directly connected to a previous-level slave, the port number of a port, to which the a-next-level slave is connected, of the previous-level slave as an address number of the next-level slave, and configuring, by the next-level slave, unique a-port numbers, for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the next-level slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the next-level slave based on the address number of the next-level slave, wherein the next-level slave comprises any slave except the first-level slave. On the other hand, Chandra did teach using, by a first-level slave directly connected to the host, the port number of a port, to which the a first-level slave is connected, of the host as an address number of the first-level slave, and configuring, by the first-level slave, unique port numbers for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the first-level slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the first-level slave based on the address number of the first-level slave; using, by a next-level slave directly connected to a previous-level slave, the port number of a port, to which the a-next-level slave is connected, of the previous-level slave as an address number of the next-level slave, and configuring, by the next-level slave, unique a-port numbers, for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the next-level slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the next-level slave based on the address number of the next-level slave, wherein the next-level slave comprises any slave except the first-level slave (13:51 to 14:13, where the port assignment is completed for each level, which would include the host level. See also, the hosts of 12:19-51). Both of the systems of Rondeau and Chandra are directed towards systems for configuring networks and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Rondeau, to utilize assigning port numbers based on level topology, as taught by Chandra, in order to provide an efficiently running system that was contemporary to the time of the invention. 3. As for claim 7, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Rondeau taught acquiring IP addresses of a plurality of slaves (0037); and acquiring topological locations of the plurality of slaves according to the IP addresses of the plurality of slaves (0037, where this teaches the assignment of IP address and the topological addressing is taught by Mishra: 0053, where the Cartesian addresses are topological addresses). 4. As for claim 8, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. In addition, Mishra taught reading topological locations of the plurality of slaves managed by the host; generating a topological structure diagram of the distributed antenna system according, to the topological locations; and configuring a route jumping function of the host and the plurality of slaves, so as to acquire graphical user interfaces corresponding to the plurality of slaves according to the topological structure diagram (0053, where the cartesian coordinate addresses effectuates a route-hoping addressing system). 5. With respect to claim 9, Rondeau taught a method for Internet Protocol address allocation in a distributed antenna system, the distributed antenna system (0037) comprising a host and multiple levels of slaves connected to the host (00374), and the method comprising: allocating an address number and one or more port numbers to a designated slave (0037); allocating, according to a port number of the designated slave, an address number and one or more port numbers to a next slave of the designated slaves (0037); and determining IP addresses of the designated slave and the next slave according to a network segment number of the host, the address number of the designated slave and the address number of the next slave (0047 & 0048). However, Rondeau did not explicitly state determining a designated slave of the multiple levels of slaves. On the other hand, Mishra did teach determining a designated slave of the multiple levels of slaves (0006, the unique addresses, where the different slaves levels can be seen in 0053). Both of the systems of Rondeau and Mishra are directed towards managing slave devices that are connected to hosts/masters and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Rondeau, to utilize different level slave devices, as taught by Mishra, in order to more efficiently manage slave devices. However, Rondeau did not explicitly state in a case where the designated slave is the first-level slave, using, by a first-level slave directly connected to the host, the port number of a port, to which the a first-level slave is connected, of the host as an address number of the first-level slave, and configuring, by the first-level slave, unique port numbers for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the first-level slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the first-level slave based on the address number of the first-level slave; in a case where the designated slave is not the first-level slave, acquiring, by the designated slave, a port number of a port, to which the designated slave is connected, of a previous-level slave of the designated slave; using, by the designated slave, the port number of the port, to which the designated slave is connected, of the previous-level slave of the designated slave as an address number of the designated slave, and configuring, by the designated slave, unique a-port numbers for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the designated slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the designated slave based on the address number of the designated slave; using, by a next-level slave of the designated slave directly connected to a previous-level slave, the port number of a port, to which the a-next-level slave is connected, of the previous-level slave as an address number of the next-level slave, and configuring, by the next-level slave, unique a-port numbers, for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the next-level slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the next-level slave based on the address number of the next-level slave, wherein the next-level slave comprises any slave except the first-level slave. On the other hand, Chandra did teach in a case where the designated slave is the first-level slave, using, by a first-level slave directly connected to the host, the port number of a port, to which the a first-level slave is connected, of the host as an address number of the first-level slave, and configuring, by the first-level slave, unique port numbers for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the first-level slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the first-level slave based on the address number of the first-level slave; in a case where the designated slave is not the first-level slave, acquiring, by the designated slave, a port number of a port, to which the designated slave is connected, of a previous-level slave of the designated slave; using, by the designated slave, the port number of the port, to which the designated slave is connected, of the previous-level slave of the designated slave as an address number of the designated slave, and configuring, by the designated slave, unique a-port numbers for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the designated slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the designated slave based on the address number of the designated slave; using, by a next-level slave of the designated slave directly connected to a previous-level slave, the port number of a port, to which the a-next-level slave is connected, of the previous-level slave as an address number of the next-level slave, and configuring, by the next-level slave, unique a-port numbers, for respective ones of one or more communication ports of the next-level slave respectively according to an order of the one or more communication ports of the next-level slave based on the address number of the next-level slave, wherein the next-level slave comprises any slave except the first-level slave (13:51 to 14:13, where the port assignment is completed for each level, which would include the host, first-level, next-level, and nth-level slaves). Both of the systems of Rondeau and Chandra are directed towards systems for configuring networks and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Rondeau, to utilize assigning port numbers based on level topology, as taught by Chandra, in order to provide an efficiently running system that was contemporary to the time of the invention. 6. As for claim 13, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Rondeau taught a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, in which a data processing program is stored, and the data processing program is used for enabling a computer to execute the method according to claim 1 (0050). 7. As for claim 16, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. In addition, Chandra taught when the topological location of a slave is updated, acquiring, by the host, an updated topological location of the slave. (7:24-34). 8. As for claim 17, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 2. In addition, Rondeau taught a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, in which a data processing program is stored, and the data processing program is used for enabling a computer to execute the method according to claim 2 (0050). 9. As for claim 20, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 5. In addition, Rondeau taught a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, in which a data processing program is stored, and the data processing program is used for enabling a computer to execute the method according to claim 5 (0050). Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rondeau, in view of Mishra, and in further view of Chandra, and in further view of Official Notice. 10. As for claim 2, Rondeau did not explicitly state acquiring, by the host, a type of an IP address according to the network segment number of the host of the distributed antenna system, where the Class-A IP address consists of a 1-byte network address and a 3-byte address of the host, the Class-B IP address consists of a 2-byte network address and a 2-byte address of the host, and the Class-C IP address consists of a 3-byte network address and a 1-byte address of the host. However, the examiner gives official notice that the addresses could be a plurality of different byte sizes and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Rondeau, to utilize specific byte sizes, as the byte sizes of the addresses is based on the protocols and formatting that is utilized for the system. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 15 are allowable over the prior-art. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm. 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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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. /JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2452
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 17, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 23, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 01, 2023
Response Filed
Sep 08, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 13, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 13, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 14, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12247323
Continuous Preparation Method of Cellulose Fibers
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 11, 2025
Patent 9271028
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DECODING A DATA STREAM IN AUDIO VIDEO STREAMING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 23, 2016
Patent 8239350
DATE AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 07, 2012
Patent 8229899
REMOTE ACCESS AGENT FOR CACHING IN A SAN FILE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 24, 2012
Patent 8209280
EXPOSING MULTIDIMENSONAL CALCULATIONS THROUGH A RELATIONAL DATABASE SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 26, 2012
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (+23.9%)
5y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 232 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month