DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 6/3/2026.
Claims 1 and 18 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the cited references do not teach “each DAU of the one or more DAUs including an input port configurated as an uplink and downlink port and an output port configured as an uplink and downlink port” (Page 6), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Stratford teaches one or more Digital Access Units (DAUs) (Fig. 3 [350]) operable to receive at least one signal from at least one of a first signal source and a second signal source from one or more of a plurality of signal sources (Fig. 3 [360]), each DAU of the one or more DAUs including an input port configured as an uplink and downlink port (Fig. 3 as seen as the D/A and A/D [digital to analog and analog to digital converter], see additional description in Col. 6 lines 35-50) and an output port configured as an uplink and downlink port. (visually, seen in Fig. 3 [350 ~TX/RX] and Col. 8 lines 58-63)
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the cited references do not teach “a traffic monitoring unit coupled to each of the DRUs, wherein the traffic monitoring unit are configured to track utilization of the plurality of radio resources at one or more of the input or output ports of the one or more DRUs” (Page 6), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Trigui teaches a traffic monitoring unit (Fig. 2 [110]) coupled to each of the DRUs (Fig. 2 [103]), wherein the traffic monitoring unit are configured to track utilization of the plurality of radio resources at one or more of the input or output ports of the one or more DRUs. (Col. 6 lines 10-20 “receive and transmit throughput for data packets” and Col. 6 lines 39 through Col. 7 line 3)
Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion.
In response to applicant's argument that “the decision process as well as the load balancing is performed at the Digital Access Units (DAUs). No signal is transported back to the input of the Base Stations as in Trigui” (Pages 6-7), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
At issue, the independent claims state the “traffic monitoring unit coupled to each of the DRUs” and it is not clear at all that the functionality is occurring at the “DAU” as now argued.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Traffic Monitoring Unit connected directly to the DAUs”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13 and 15-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stratford et al. (US-6,785,558 hereinafter, Stratford) in view of Trigui et al. (US-8,498,207 hereinafter, Trigui) and Engstrom et al. (US-7,372,829 hereinafter, Engstrom).
Regarding claim 1, Stratford teaches a system (Fig. 3), comprising:
one or more Digital Access Units (DAUs) (Fig. 3 [350]) operable to receive at least one signal from at least one of a first signal source and a second signal source from one or more of a plurality of signal sources (Fig. 3 [360]), each DAU of the one or more DAUs including an input port configured as an uplink and downlink port (Fig. 3 as seen as the D/A and A/D [digital to analog and analog to digital converter], see additional description in Col. 6 lines 35-50) and an output port configured as an uplink and downlink port; (visually, seen in Fig. 3 [350 ~TX/RX] and Col. 8 lines 58-63)
one or more Digital Remote Units (DRUs) (Fig. 3 [340]) connectable to the one or more DAUs (Fig. 3 [350]) and operable to transport signals between one or more of the one or more DRUs and the one or more DAUs; (Col. 6 lines 35-48)
a plurality of radio resources (Fig. 5 [410 & 440]) associated with the one or more DRUs comprising a first radio resource and a second radio resource different from the first radio resource, each radio resource being allocated to a subset of the one or more DRUs. (Col. 6 lines 46-48 and 65 through Col. 7 line 4)
Stratford differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein a first subset of radio resources is assigned to a first geographical area and a second subset of radio resources is assigned to a second geographical area; a traffic monitoring unit coupled to each of the DRUs, wherein the traffic monitoring unit is configured to track a utilization of the plurality of radio resources at one or more of the input or output ports of the one or more DRUs; and a network optimization processor, coupled to the traffic monitoring unit, operable to reconfigure an allocation of the plurality of radio resources to the one or more DRUs based on a change in the utilization of the plurality of radio resources assigned to the first geographical area.
In an analogous art, Trigui teaches a dynamic load balancing system for a wireless communication network (Abstract) that includes a plurality of radio resources (Col. 7 line 4 through line 57, specifically line 38 and Col. 8 lines 47-60) assigned to the one or more DRUs (Figs. 1 & 2 [103]), wherein a first subset of radio resources is assigned to a first geographical area and a second subset of radio resources is assigned to a second geographical area; (Col. 8 lines 47-60 i.e. each base station has a specific transmission power assigned to the coverage area and Fig. 1 [105x])
a traffic monitoring unit (Fig. 2 [110]) coupled to each of the DRUs (Fig. 2 [103] via [200, 101, 102], see Col. 6 lines 10-33), wherein the traffic monitoring unit is configured to track a utilization of the plurality of radio resources (Col. 6 lines 10-20 “receive and transmit throughput for data packets” and Col. 6 line 39 through Col. 7 line 3) at the one or more of the input or output ports of the one or more DRUs; (Col. 5 lines 3-10 “receive and transmit throughput for data packets” and Col. 6 lines 18-20) and
a network optimization processor (Fig. 2 [109] and Col. 6 lines 34-38), coupled to the traffic monitoring unit (Col. 5 lines 26-29 “algorithm that analyzes the data related to the wireless communication network” and Col. 6 lines 21-33), operable to reconfigure an allocation of the plurality of radio resources (Fig. 3 [305]) to the one or more DRUs based on a change in the utilization of the plurality of radio resources assigned to the first geographical area. (Fig. 3 [301, 302, No, 303, 304, Yes], Col. 7 line 4 through line 57, specifically lines 30 and 38, i.e. power amplifier output power and changing the “Number of RF Carriers per Sector and Their Frequencies” based on whether there is an improvement and Col. 8 lines 47-60 i.e. reducing transmission power at one base station while increasing transmission power at the surrounding base stations)
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Stratford after modifying it to incorporate a traffic monitoring unit and network optimization processor of Trigui since it enables optimizing and reshaping network coverage as the environment and traffic density changes with time, thereby providing the best service possible to the network users. (Trigui Col. 5 lines 23-48)
Stratford in view of Trigui differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the first DRU of the one or more DRUs is assigned to the first subset of radio resources and the first geographical area, a second DRU of the one or more DRUs is assigned to the second subset of radio resources and the second geographical area, after the first DRU is assigned, the first DRU can receive only the first subset of radio resources and the first geographical area, and not the second subset of radio resources, and after the second DRU is assigned, the second DRU can receive only the second subset of radio resources and the second geographical area, and not the first subset of radio resources.
In an analogous art, Engstrom teaches a method and system for migrating a cellular network from a first cell plan to a second cell plan (Abstract) that includes a first DRU (Fig. 5 [6]) of the one or more DRUs (Fig. 5 [6-9]), is assigned to the first subset of radio resources (Fig. 5 [a & B]) and the first geographical area (Col. 3 lines 60-67),
a second DRU (Fig. 5 [8]) of the one or more DRUs is assigned to the second subset of radio resources (Fig. 5 [b & A]) and the second geographical area, (Fig. 5 and Col. 4 lines 3-10)
after the first DRU is assigned, the first DRU can receive only the first subset of radio resources and the first geographical area, and not the second subset of radio resources, (Col. 3 lines 45-59 and Col. 7 Claim 1) and
after the second DRU is assigned, the second DRU can receive only the second subset of radio resources and the second geographical area, and not the first subset of radio resources. (Col. 3 lines 45-59, Col. 4 lines 3-18 and Col. 7 Claim 1)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Stratford in view of Trigui after modifying it to clearly explain how resources are provided to sectors within a cellular network of Engstrom since it enables maintaining low carrier to interference ratios with neighboring sectors/cells in order to meet customer demand of the cellular network.
Regarding claim 2, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the network optimization processor comprises an optimization algorithm. (Trigui Col. 5 lines 26-48)
Regarding claim 3, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the network optimization processor comprises an optimization goal. (Trigui Fig. 1 [112] and Col. 5 lines 13-16 and Col. 5 line 60 through Col. 6 line 20)
Regarding claim 4, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the network optimization processor includes a network optimization goal and an optimization algorithm configured to, based on traffic measurements, optimize performance of the system. (Trigui Col. 5 line 60 through Col. 6 line 33 and Fig. 3 [306 & 309])
Regarding claim 5, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the optimization does not require maximum values for traffic management metrics, but also includes distribution of traffic that improves system performance while remaining short of maximum performance. (Trigui Fig. 3 [304] and Col. 7 lines 8-15 i.e. the target criteria is operator specific and can be changed or altered as needed)
Regarding claim 6, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the network optimization processor (Trigui Fig. 2 [109]) is in a different server than the traffic monitor unit. (Trigui Fig. 2 [110])
Regarding claim 8, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the network optimization processor is further operable to rebalance a traffic load at each DAU in the system. (Trigui Col. 8 lines 47-60)
Regarding claim 9, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches one or more Base Transceiver Stations (BTSs) coupled to the one or more DAUs, wherein each BTS comprise the plurality of radio resources. (Stratford Fig. 2 [240] and Col. 1 lines 46-60)
Regarding claim 10, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches a network optimization goal comprising a percentage of users associated with each of the plurality of radio resources. (Trigui Col. 6 lines 45-59)
Regarding claim 11, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the traffic monitoring unit is external to the one or more DAUs. (Trigui Fig. 2 [110 & 202] via [200, 109 & 115], see Col. 5 lines 26-36)
Regarding claim 13, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the traffic monitoring unit (Trigui Fig. 2 [110]) is external to the one or more DRUs. (Trigui Fig. 2 [103])
Regarding claim 15, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the traffic monitoring unit is configured to analyze Key Performance Indicators of a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) network. (Trigui Col. 6 lines 7-20)
Regarding claim 16, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the traffic monitoring unit is configured to analyze Quality of Service (QoS) values of a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) network. (Trigui Col. 6 lines 7-20)
Regarding claim 17, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the traffic monitoring unit (Trigui Fig. 2 [110]), cooperating with one or more of the DAUs, provides for optimization of a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) network (Trigui Fig. 3, Col. 5 lines 39-48 and Col. 6 line 34 through Col. 8 line 7) and the traffic monitoring unit (Trigui Fig. 2 [110]) is external to the DAUs. (Trigui Fig. 2 [202])
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 20.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 21, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein the traffic monitoring unit is coupled to each of the DAUs. (Trigui teaches a traffic monitoring unit (Fig. 2 [110]) coupled to each of the DAUs (Fig. 2 [102] via [200, 101], see Col. 6 lines 10-33),)
Regarding claim 22, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches wherein each of the DAUs is coupled to every other one of the DAUs. (Stratford Fig. 3 [350] are coupled via [360 & 340])
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2013/185096 to Smith et al. with full support found in 61/657,535 filed 6/8/2012 hereinafter, Smith).
Regarding claim 7, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches the limitations of claim 20 above including that off-line tools for network improvements are known (Trigui Col. 10 lines 60-67), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the network optimization processor is further operable to model rebalancing of traffic load.
In an analogous art, Smith teaches a system and method for identifying and remedying traffic imbalances and inequities between networks (Abstract) that includes a network optimization processor (Figs. 7-13) is further operable to model rebalancing of traffic load. (Page 4 [0024] and Pages 17-18 [0072])
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom after modifying it to incorporate the ability to model the rebalancing of traffic load of Smith since it enables viewing the impact of the changes before physical implementation of the changes in the network. (Page 4 [0024] and Pages 17-18 [0072])
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Case Law.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Stratford in view of Trigui and Engstrom teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting the traffic monitoring unit is provided as a component of each of the one or more DAUs or one or more DRUs.
However, Case Law states that it is obvious to make integral, what was previously several parts as a matter of obvious engineering choice (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)) and that the ability to duplicate parts for a multiplied effect provides no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B))
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since it enables decentralizing traffic monitoring collection so that when there is a failure of the traffic monitoring unit (either planned downtime or unplanned), the failure does not affect the entire network optimization routine, thereby providing a more robust solution for increased user satisfaction and reliability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-10,938,450 to Kummetz et al. which discloses a base station router structure for a distributed antenna system
WO-2009/021359A1 to Leng et al. which discloses a distributed antenna system and the ability to dynamically reassign the distributed antenna system based on the real-time loading conditions.
US-9,794,791 to Hasarchi et al. which discloses a digital capacity adjustment system for a distributed antenna system in order to meet demand.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights