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 ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. A. Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the combination of Chow and Rosenschild is not proper because the Examiner fails to provide proper rational to support the conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion because obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this instance, Chow explicitly does not mentions a “distributed antenna system”.
However, Rosenschild, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses a distributed antenna system (= distributed antenna system (DAS) comprising a master unit and remote antenna units configured to transmit to a base station, see [0003 and 0010]).
Based on the above response, the Office Action is being made FINAL as shown below.
B. The rejection of all the dependent claims, by virtue of their dependency from the independent claims, is also being made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chow et al., (US 2015/0016260), (hereinafter, Chow ) in view of Rosenschild et al., (US 2021/0153034), (hereinafter, Rosenschild).
Regarding claim 1, Chow disclose a method for supporting a private network with a system (= Local Area Network (LAN) 210 is connected to Wide Area (WAN) , see [0048 and 0050]), the method comprising:
determining whether a private network is activated and connected to the system (= Local Area Network (LAN) 210 is connected to Wide Area (WAN) , see [0048 and 0050]);
determining one or more paths of the system impacted by the private network
(= total loss of connectivity between the first LAN 220 and corresponding first WAN backhaul connection 211, see [0076 and 0113-14]; and traffic imbalance, see [0118]);
receiving an indication of available resources and capability information for one or more components in the system (= analyzing bandwidth usage over time; and allocating unused bandwidth associated with the first WAN backhaul connection 411 to the second LAN access device 420 based on the identified traffic imbalance, see [0118]; and machine 700 to perform any one or methodologies; operates in the capacity of a server or client machine; and capable of executing a set of instruction, see [0181 and 0184]);
dedicating resources of the system to the private network based on requirements of the private network and the available resources for the one or more components of the system (= allocate unused bandwidth associated with the first WAN to the second LAN access device, see [0201]); and
utilizing the resources of the system dedicated to the private network for traffic having an identifier corresponding to the private network (= allocate unused bandwidth associated with the first WAN to the second LAN access device, see [0201 and 0223]).
Although Chow discloses traffic aggregation in multiple backhauls (see [0016]), Chow explicitly mentions a “distributed antenna system”.
However, Rosenschild, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses a distributed antenna system (= distributed antenna system (DAS) comprising a master unit and remote antenna units configured to transmit to a base station, see [0003 and 0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Rosenschild with Chow for the benefit of achieving a distributed antenna system (DAS) that includes virtual system controller function configured to establish a plurality of virtual systems and assign one or more physical resource to the DAS.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Chow further discloses the method wherein determining one or more paths of the system impacted by the private network is based on Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) information for the private network, topology information for the system, location information for nodes of the system, and/or characteristics of one or more flows supported by the system
(= management device may assign incoming flows into lightly loaded WAN connection, see [0107]).
Although Chow discloses traffic aggregation in multiple backhauls (see [0016]), Chow explicitly mentions a “distributed antenna system”.
However, Rosenschild, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses a distributed antenna system (= distributed antenna system (DAS) comprising a master unit and remote antenna units configured to transmit to a base station, see [0003 and 0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Rosenschild with Chow for the benefit of achieving a distributed antenna system (DAS) that includes virtual system controller function configured to establish a plurality of virtual systems and assign one or more physical resource to the DAS.
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in claim 1, Chow explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the distributed antenna system includes a master unit communicatively coupled to and located remotely from a plurality of radio units, wherein the master unit is communicatively coupled to the plurality of radio units via one or more switches and one or more intermediary combining nodes.
However, Rosenschild, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method, wherein the distributed antenna system includes a master unit communicatively coupled to and located remotely from a plurality of radio units, wherein the master unit is communicatively coupled to the plurality of radio units via one or more switches and one or more intermediary combining nodes (= DAS includes distributed master unit 110 and remote antenna units, establishing connection with one or more base stations, see [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Rosenschild with Chow for the benefit of achieving a distributed antenna system (DAS) that includes virtual system controller function configured to establish a plurality of virtual systems and assign one or more physical resource to the DAS.
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 6, Chow further discloses the method wherein dedicating resources of the system to the private network based on the requirements of the private network and the available resources for the one or more components of the system includes: instantiating one or more network functions for the private network at the master unit and/or at the one or more intermediary combining nodes; selecting physical hardware to instantiate the one or more network functions for the private network (= configuration change to STA to AP associations associated with LAN; antenna array configuration, see [0114]) and/or determining dimensioning of a transport network of the system for the one or more switches to support the requirements for the private network
Although Chow discloses traffic aggregation in multiple backhauls (see [0016]), Chow explicitly mentions a “distributed antenna system”.
However, Rosenschild, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses a distributed antenna system (= distributed antenna system (DAS) comprising a master unit and remote antenna units configured to transmit to a base station, see [0003 and 0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Rosenschild with Chow for the benefit of achieving a distributed antenna system (DAS) that includes virtual system controller function configured to establish a plurality of virtual systems and assign one or more physical resource to the DAS.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 6, Chow further discloses the method , wherein dedicating resources of the system to the private network based on requirements of the private network and the available resources for the one or more components of the system includes: dedicating processing resources, memory, storage, and/or network resources of the master unit, the one or more intermediary combining nodes, and the plurality of radio units to the private network; and dedicating network resources of the one or more switches to the private network (= configuration change to STA to AP associations associated with LAN; antenna array configuration, see [0114]).
Although Chow discloses traffic aggregation in multiple backhauls (see [0016]), Chow explicitly mentions a “distributed antenna system”.
However, Rosenschild, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses a distributed antenna system (= distributed antenna system (DAS) comprising a master unit and remote antenna units configured to transmit to a base station, see [0003 and 0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Rosenschild with Chow for the benefit of achieving a distributed antenna system (DAS) that includes virtual system controller function configured to establish a plurality of virtual systems and assign one or more physical resource to the DAS.
4. Claims 10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenschild in view of Chow.
Regarding claim 10, Rosenschild discloses a system, comprising:
a master unit of a distributed antenna system, wherein the master unit is configured to be coupled to one or more base station entities of a private network
(= distributed antenna system 100 comprises access points 140 and distributed master unit 110 that establishes communication with one or more base stations 105, see [0010]);
a plurality of radio units of the distributed antenna system communicatively coupled to the master unit, wherein the plurality of radio units is located remotely from the master unit (= connection between master unit 110 and RAU/AP 140, see [0010] and Fig. 1); and
at least one controller communicatively coupled to the master unit (= DAS system controller 212 and master unit 110, see [0015] and Fig. 1), wherein the at least one controller is configured to:
determine whether the private network is activated and connected to the distributed antenna system (= assigning one or more physical resource of the DAS to each of the plurality of virtual systems/operator; and extend communications connectivity provided by a base station, see [0036]).
Rosenschild explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“determine one or more paths of the system impacted by the private network; receive an indication of available resources and capability information for one or more components in the system; and dedicate resources of the system to the private network based on requirements of the private network and the available resources for the one or more components of the system; wherein the system is configured to utilize the resources of the system dedicated to the private network for traffic having an identifier corresponding to the private network.
However, Chow, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“determine one or more paths of the system impacted by the private network (= total loss of connectivity between the first LAN 220 and corresponding first WAN backhaul connection 211, see [0076 and 0113-14]; and traffic imbalance, see [0118]);
receive an indication of available resources and capability information for one or more components in the system (= analyzing bandwidth usage over time; and allocating unused bandwidth associated with the first WAN backhaul connection 411 to the second LAN access device 420 based on the identified traffic imbalance, see [0118]; and machine 700 to perform any one or methodologies; operates in the capacity of a server or client machine; and capable of executing a set of instruction, see [0181 and 0184]);
and dedicate resources of the system to the private network based on requirements of the private network and the available resources for the one or more components of the system (= allocate unused bandwidth associated with the first WAN to the second LAN access device, see [0201]); and
wherein the system is configured to utilize the resources of the system dedicated to the private network for traffic having an identifier corresponding to the private network (= allocate unused bandwidth associated with the first WAN to the second LAN access device, see [0201 and 0223]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Chow with Rosenschild for the benefit of achieving a communication system that benefits from methods for traffic aggregation on multiple WAN backhauls and multiple LAN networks.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 10, Rosenschild discloses a distributed antenna system (= distributed antenna system (DAS) comprising a master unit and remote antenna units configured to transmit to a base station, see [0003 and 0010]); but explicitly fails to disclose that the system wherein the at least one controller is configured to determine the one or more paths of the system impacted by the private network includes using topology information for the distributed antenna system, location information for nodes of the system, and characteristics of one or more flows supported by the system.
However, Chow, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“system wherein the at least one controller is configured to determine the one or more paths of the system impacted by the private network includes using topology information for the distributed antenna system, location information for nodes of the system, and characteristics of one or more flows supported by the system
(= management device may assign incoming flows into lightly loaded WAN connection, see [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Chow with Rosenschild for the benefit of achieving a communication system that benefits from methods for traffic aggregation on multiple WAN backhauls and multiple LAN networks.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned in claim 10, Rosenschild further disclose the system wherein the master unit is communicatively coupled to the plurality of radio units via one or more switches and one or more intermediary combining nodes (= DAS includes distributed master unit 110 and remote antenna units, establishing connection with one or more base stations, see [0010]).
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned in claim 15, Rosenschild further disclose the system wherein the at least one controller is configured to dedicate resources of the distributed antenna system to the private network based on requirements of the private network and the available resources for the one or more components of the distributed antenna system by: instantiating one or more network functions for the private network at the master unit and/or at the one or more intermediary combining nodes (= DAS includes distributed master unit 110 and remote antenna units, establishing connection with one or more base stations, see [0010]); selecting physical hardware to instantiate the one or more network functions for the private network; and/or determining dimensioning of a transport network of the distributed antenna system to support the requirements for the private network.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 3-5, 9, 11-13 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
CONCLUSION
6. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Sat (6am – 10pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
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).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights