DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on May 29, 2025. As set forth therein, claims 1-20 have been canceled and new claims 21-40 have been added.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the specification submitted on March 3, 2025 and the amendment to the specification and abstract submitted on May 29, 2025.
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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 9,900,114 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 29, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The Examiner notes that any listed document which have not been dated in accordance with 37 CFR 1.98 have been crossed-out.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The Examiner finds that the reissue declaration submitted on March 3, 2025 is a copy of the previous reissue declaration filed in a parent reissue application. The Examiner maintains that submitted reissue declaration does not identify an error being corrected by the instant continuation reissue application. In addition, the stated error was already corrected in the parent reissue applications.
Claims 21-40 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first monitor device” in claim 1, “second monitor device” in claim 1, “monitoring unit” in claims 1, 23, 27, and 29, and “monitoring devices” in claim 29.
Claim 21:
a first monitor device configured to transmit via a first antenna a first antenna monitor signal including first monitor data associated with the first monitor device
a second monitor device configured to transmit via a second antenna a second antenna monitor signal including second monitor data associated with the second monitor device
a monitoring unit configured to generate a first antenna status indicating a status of the first antenna and generate a second antenna status indicating a status of the second antenna
Claim 23:
the monitoring unit is further configured to store, in an antenna status database, a database entry representing the first antenna status or the second antenna status
Claim 27:
the monitoring unit is configured to measure a signal strength associated with the first antenna monitor signal and to generate an additional first antenna status indicative of the signal strength.
Claim 29:
a plurality of monitor devices configured to facilitate monitoring operation of a plurality of antennas,
a monitor device of the plurality of monitor devices configured to transmit an antenna monitor signal via a corresponding antenna of the plurality of antennas;
a monitoring unit configured to: receive the antenna monitor signal transmitted by the monitor device and, responsive to receiving the antenna monitor signal, generate a first antenna status indicating a normal operational status of the antenna; and responsive to at least one of failing to receive the antenna monitor signal or a determination that a signal strength of the antenna monitor signal satisfies a signal strength threshold, generate a second antenna status indicating a defective operational status of the antenna
In accordance with MPEP 2181, the Examiner finds that with respect to “monitor device” (including first, second and plurality), the above claim functional phrases do not use the term “means”. However, the Examiner determines that “monitor device” is a generic placeholder for “means” since a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that term to denote any particular structure.
The Examiner further finds that as shown above, “monitor device” is modified by functional language and is linked by the transition word “configured to”.
The Examiner further maintains that the functional phrases do not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function. It is noted that while certain functional phrases include “antenna”, this alone is not sufficient structure for performing the entirety of the claimed function.
As to the corresponding structure, the Examiner finds that the underlying ‘114 patent discloses that the monitor[ing] device comprises a controller, transceiver and an antenna. See col. 5, lines 13-24 and Figure 3.
In accordance with MPEP 2181, the Examiner finds that with respect to “monitoring unit” the above claim functional phrases do not use the term “means”. However, the Examiner determines that “monitoring unit” is a generic placeholder for “means” since a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that term to denote a particular structure.
The Examiner further finds that the “monitoring unit” is modified by functional language and is linked by the transition word “configured to”.
The Examiner further finds that the functional phrases do not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function.
As to the corresponding structure, the Examiner finds that the underlying ‘114 patent discloses that the monitoring unit comprises a transceiver which is connected to the network. See col. 5, lines 25-28. In addition, in col. 6, lines 4-13, the ‘114 patent discloses that the CMU (central monitoring unit) includes a processing means for processing measurements and may comprise or be connected to a database for storage.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 29 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, lines 19 and 25 “to placed” should be “to be placed”.
Claim 29, line 13, “to placed” should be “to be placed”.
Claim 39, lines 16 ‘to placed” should be “to be placed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22-27,29, 33-37 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22-24, 26-29, 33 and 41 of U.S. Patent No. RE50326 in view of Evans US Patent 6,069,529.
19/068,831
RE50326
21. An antenna monitoring system comprising:
21. An antenna monitoring system comprising:
a first monitor device configured to transmit via a first antenna a first antenna monitor signal including first monitor data associated with the first monitor device;
a second monitor device configured to transmit via a second antenna a second antenna monitor signal including second monitor data associated with the second monitor device, the second monitor data being different from the first monitor data;
a first monitor device configured to be adhered to a radome of a first antenna connected to a wired signal transmission network, the first monitor device configured to transmit a first antenna monitor signal, the first antenna monitor signal including first monitor data associated with the first monitor device;
a second monitor device configured to be adhered to a radome of a second antenna connected to the wired signal transmission network, the second monitor device configured to transmit a second antenna monitor signal, the second antenna monitor signal including second monitor data associated with the second monitor device, the second monitor data being different from the first monitor data;
a coupler configured to be connected to the wired signal transmission network; and
a monitoring unit configured to generate a first antenna status indicating a status of the first antenna and generate a second antenna status indicating a status of the second antenna;
a monitoring unit configured to be connected to the wired signal transmission network through the coupler, the monitoring unit further configured to receive the first antenna monitor signal, receive the second antenna monitor signal, generate a first antenna status indicating a status of the first antenna, and generate a second antenna status indicating a status of the second antenna;
wherein, within a predetermined time period, the first monitor device transmits the first antenna monitor signal, and within a same predetermined time period, the second monitor device transmits the second antenna monitor signal;
wherein, responsive to receiving the first antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the first antenna status indicating an operational status of the first antenna; and
wherein, responsive to failing to receive the second antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the second antenna status indicating a defective status of the second antenna;
wherein, within a predetermined time period, the first monitor device transmits the first antenna monitor signal, and within a same predetermined time period, the second monitor device transmits the second antenna monitor signal;
wherein, responsive to receiving the first antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the first antenna status indicating an operational status of the first antenna;
wherein, responsive to failing to receive the second antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the second antenna status indicating a defective status of the second antenna;
wherein the monitoring unit is configured to transmit a first signal to the first monitor device and transmit a second signal to the second monitor device;
wherein the coupler is configured to inject the first signal and the second signal into the wired signal transmission network;
wherein the first monitor device is configured to transmit the first antenna monitor signal responsive to receiving the first signal via the wired signal transmission network; and
wherein the second monitor device is configured to transmit the second antenna monitor signal responsive to receiving the second signal via the wired signal transmission network.
a first switch configured to placed in proximity with the first antenna, the first switch configured to: in a first state, permit the first antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the first antenna monitor signal to a dummy load; and
a second switch configured to placed in proximity with the second antenna, the second switch configured to: in a first state, permit the second antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the second antenna monitor signal to a dummy load.
As shown in the above claim chart, the claims of the instant reissue are broader than the claims of RE50326 except that the instant reissue claim recites “a first switch configured to placed in proximity with the first antenna, the first switch configured to: in a first state, permit the first antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the first antenna monitor signal to a dummy load; and a second switch configured to placed in proximity with the second antenna, the second switch configured to: in a first state, permit the second antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the second antenna monitor signal to a dummy load.”
The Examiner notes however, that having a switch to permit a signal to be transmitted or to divert a signal to a dummy load would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Evans is directed to an amplifier and antenna system in which upon a failure of an amplifier, the output of the failed amplifier is directed by the switch to a dump load while the output of an operating amplifier is directed to the antenna. See the abstract and col. 1, lines 64 – col. 2, line 20. See also col. 3, lines 35-56. The Examiner notes that although Evans is directed to failure of an amplifier, the teachings show that it was known to divert a signal using a switch to a dummy load upon failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a switch for allowing a signal to pass through or diverting the antenna monitor signal to a dummy load upon failure. The Examiner finds that diverting the signal to a dummy load upon failure would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it would indicate a failure in the system and improve overall efficiency. In addition, claims 22-27,29, 33-37 and 39 correspond to claims 22-24, 26-29, 29, 41, 33, 29, 29, and 29 of RE50326 respectively.
Claims 21, 29 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. RE49217 in view of Evans US Patent 6,069,529.
19/068,831
RE49217
29. An antenna monitoring system comprising:
21. A monitoring system for a distributed antenna system, the monitoring system comprising:
a plurality of monitor devices configured to facilitate monitoring operation of a plurality of antennas, a monitor device of the plurality of monitor devices configured to transmit an antenna monitor signal via a corresponding antenna of the plurality of antennas;
a central monitor configured to be coupled via a network to a plurality of antennas; and a plurality of remote monitors associated with the plurality of antennas, the plurality of remote monitors comprising: a first remote monitor of the plurality of remote monitors configured to, upon being polled by the central monitor with a first monitoring signal transmitted via the network and a first antenna associated with remote monitor, transmit a first response signal to the central monitor via the first antenna associated with the first remote monitor and the network; and a second remote monitor of the plurality of remote monitors configured to, upon being polled by the central monitor with a second monitoring signal transmitted via the network and a second antenna associated with the second remote monitor, transmit a second response signal to the central monitor via the second antenna associated with the second remote monitor and the network; wherein the first remote monitor and the second remote monitor are associated with the first and second antennas sharing a branch of the network connecting the first and second antennas to the central monitor;
a monitoring unit configured to: receive the antenna monitor signal transmitted by the monitor device and, responsive to receiving the antenna monitor signal, generate a first antenna status indicating a normal operational status of the antenna; and
wherein the central monitor is further configured to: in response to a determination that no first response signal has been received from the first remote monitor, label at least one of the first remote monitor or the first antenna associated with the first remote monitor as defective; and in response to a determination that a signal strength of the first response signal received from the first remote monitor does not satisfy a first signal strength threshold and that a signal strength of the second response signal received from the second remote monitor does not satisfy a second signal strength threshold, determine that the branch has failed.
responsive to at least one of failing to receive the antenna monitor signal or a determination that a signal strength of the antenna monitor signal satisfies a signal strength threshold, generate a second antenna status indicating a defective operational status of the antenna; and
a plurality of switches configured to placed in proximity with the plurality of antennas, a switch of the plurality of switches configured to: in a first state, permit the antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the antenna monitor signal to a dummy load.
As shown in the above claim chart, the claims of the instant reissue are broader than the claims of RE49217 except that the instant reissue recites “a first switch configured to placed in proximity with the first antenna, the first switch configured to: in a first state, permit the first antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the first antenna monitor signal to a dummy load; and a second switch configured to placed in proximity with the second antenna, the second switch configured to: in a first state, permit the second antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the second antenna monitor signal to a dummy load.”
The Examiner notes however that having a switch to permit a signal to be transmitted or to divert a signal to a dummy load would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
For example, Evans is directed to an amplifier and antenna system in which upon a failure of an amplifier, the output of the failed amplifier is directed by the switch to a dump load while the output of an operating amplifier is directed to the antenna. See the abstract and col. 1, lines 64 – col. 2, line 20. See also col. 3, lines 35-56. The Examiner notes that although Evans is directed to failure of an amplifier, the teachings show that it was known to divert a signal using a switch to a dummy load upon failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a switch for allowing a signal to pass through or diverting the antenna monitor signal to a dummy load upon failure. The Examiner finds that diverting the signal to a dummy load upon failure would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it would indicate a failure in the system and improve overall efficiency. The Examiner notes that claims 21 and 39 also correspond to claim 21 of RE49217.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 25-32, 35, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Tempel EP 2765721 in view of Evans 6,069,529.
Regarding claim 21:
An antenna monitoring system comprising:
Van der Tempel is directed to a monitoring system for a distributed antenna system. See the abstract, paragraph [0001] and Figure 3.
a first monitor device configured to transmit via a first antenna a first antenna monitor signal including first monitor data associated with the first monitor device;
Van der Tempel discloses a plurality of signal transmitters including a first signal transmitter (first monitor device) 10A (see Fig. 3) that is mounted at a fixed location with respect to an antenna (A) to guarantee optimal coupling of a monitoring signal from the signal transmitter to the antenna. See paragraph [0040-0041] and Figure 1 of Van der Tempel which shows that the antenna monitor signal (i.e. monitoring signal A) is transmitted from the signal transmitter (first monitor device) to the antenna A before being transmitted to the monitoring units 11,12. See paragraphs [0027-0028]. See also Figure 3.
Van der Tempel discloses the monitoring signal includes identification information of the signal transmitter which is used to identify the source of the monitoring signal M. Paragraphs [0026]. See also Figure 4 and 6. Thus, the antenna monitoring signal includes first monitor data associated with the first monitor device.
a second monitor device configured to transmit via a second antenna a second antenna monitor signal including second monitor data associated with the second monitor device, the second monitor data being different from the first monitor data;
Van der Tempel discloses a plurality of signal transmitters (monitor devices) including a second signal transmitter 10B (second monitor device) that is mounted at a fixed location with respect to an antenna to guarantee optimal coupling of a monitoring signal from the signal transmitter to the antenna. Van der Tempel discloses that it should be mounted within range so as to optimize the signal transmitted towards the antennas (e.g. by reducing free space loss). See paragraph [0010] See paragraph [0040-0041] and Figure 1 of Van der Tempel which shows that the antenna monitor signal (i.e. monitoring signal A) is transmitted from the signal transmitter (second monitor device) to the antenna A before being transmitted to the monitoring units 11/12. See paragraphs [0027-0028]. See also Figure 3.
Van der Tempel discloses the monitoring signal includes identification information of the signal transmitter which is used to identify the source of the monitoring signal M. Paragraphs [0026]. See also Figure 4 and 6. Thus, the antenna monitoring signal includes second monitor data associated with the second monitor device.
In addition, since each signal transmitter, as shown in Figure 1 and 3 is different from each other thus the monitor data is different since it will be based on its associated antennas as well as its own unique identification information. See paragraph [0026]and Figures 3 and 4
a monitoring unit configured to generate a first antenna status indicating a status of the first antenna and generate a second antenna status indicating a status of the second antenna;
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], in one example, the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. Van der Tempel also discloses the monitoring signals include signal strength that may be measured by the monitoring system. Van der Tempel states that initial signal strength values are stored for each signal transmitter and deviations from the initial values may indicate a malfunction.
As set forth in paragraph [0013], the monitoring system is configured to monitor the operational status of the distributed antenna system and to report malfunctions.
Thus, the monitoring unit is configured to determine a first and second antenna status based upon both receipt (signal strength) and non-receipt (signal no longer received). See also paragraphs [0035-0038] and paragraph [0042].
wherein, within a predetermined time period, the first monitor device transmits the first antenna monitor signal, and within a same predetermined time period, the second monitor device transmits the second antenna monitor signal;
Van der Tempel discloses that the monitoring signal is transmitted (by both the first and second monitor devices) repeatedly at periodic intervals (within a predetermined time period). See paragraph [0010]. See also paragraph [0037].
wherein, responsive to receiving the first antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the first antenna status indicating an operational status of the first antenna; and
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. Van der Tempel further discloses that the monitoring entity determines the signal strength of the monitoring signals and uses this information in order to determine the operational status. See paragraph [0013]. See also paragraph [0042] which discloses that this indicates a malfunction (i.e. the antennas status is defective). In addition, the status can be based upon the signal strength as disclosed in paragraph [0029] and paragraphs [0035-0038]
The Examiner notes that the status can indicate both non-malfunctioning (or normal operation) as well as malfunction. See paragraphs [0012, 0013, and 0018]
wherein, responsive to failing to receive the second antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the second antenna status indicating a defective status of the second antenna;
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. Van der Tempel further discloses that the monitoring entity determines the signal strength of the monitoring signals and uses this information in order to determine the operational status. See paragraph [0013]. See also paragraph [0042] which discloses that this indicates a malfunction (i.e. the antennas status is defective). In addition, the status can be based upon the signal strength as disclosed in paragraph [0029] and paragraphs [0035-0038]. See also paragraphs [0012 and 0018]
a first switch configured to placed in proximity with the first antenna, the first switch configured to: in a first state, permit the first antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the first antenna monitor signal to a dummy load;
The Examiner notes that Van der Tempel discloses of a switch placed in proximity with the first antenna and to permit the first antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit. Specifically, as set forth in paragraph [0024] a switching matrix is used to distribute signals from the network antennas. See also Figures 2 and 5 and paragraph [0037] which discloses the transmission of signal using the switching matrix.
Van der Tempel does not specifically disclose of a switch to divert the first antenna signal to a dummy load. The Examiner notes that the use of switches to divert based on failure is known in the prior art. For example, Evan is directed to an amplifier and antenna system in which upon a failure of an amplifier, the output of the failed amplifier is directed by the switch to a dump load while the output of an operating amplifier is directed to the antenna. See the abstract and col. 1, lines 64 – col. 2, line 20. See also col. 3, lines 35-56. The Examiner notes that although Evans is directed to failure of an amplifier, the teachings show that it was known to divert a signal using a switch to a dummy load upon failure.
and a second switch configured to placed in proximity with the second antenna, the second switch configured to: in a first state, permit the second antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the second antenna monitor signal to a dummy load.
The Examiner notes that Van der Tempel discloses of a switch placed in proximity with the first antenna and to permit the first antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit. Specifically, as set forth in paragraph [0024] a switching matrix is used to distribute signals from the network antennas. See also Figures 2 and 5 and paragraph [0037] which discloses the transmission of signal using the switching matrix.
The Examiner notes that the use of switches to divert based on failure is known in the prior art. For example, Evan is directed to an amplifier and antenna system in which upon a failure of an amplifier, the output of the failed amplifier is directed by the switch to a dump load while the output of an operating amplifier is directed to the antenna. See the abstract and col. 1, lines 64 – col. 2, line 20. See also col. 3, lines 35-56.
Van der Tempel does not specifically disclose of a switch to divert the first antenna signal to a dummy load. The Examiner notes that although Evans is directed to failure of an amplifier, the teachings show that it was known to divert a signal using a switch to a dummy load upon failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a function to the switch to Van der Tempel for diverting the antenna monitor signal to a dummy load upon failure. As explained by Van der Tempel, the monitoring entity can already detect a malfunction with one or more parts of the DAS. See paragraph [0029]. Van der Tempel already discloses that the monitoring system does not receive the monitoring signal M from the signal transmitters. Thus, diverting the signal to a dummy load upon failure would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it would indicate a failure in the system. In addition, this would also improve the efficiency of the system with respect to diverting signals from malfunctioning antennas.
Regarding claim 22:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the first monitor data includes a first monitor device identifier identifying the first monitor device, and wherein the second monitor data includes a second monitor device identifier identifying the second monitor device.
As disclosed in paragraph [0026] which discloses that the monitoring signals include identification information of the signal transmitter. This enables identification of the source of the monitoring system M. See also Figure 6 which shows that the monitoring signal include ‘tag identifiers”. See also paragraphs [0017], [0026] and [0033] and Figure 4.
Regarding claim 25:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the first monitor device is powered by a first battery and the second monitor device is powered by a second battery.
As set forth above, Van der Tempel also discloses that the signal transmitters may be powered via battery and the signal transmitters can convey information regarding its battery status. See also paragraphs [0034] and [0038].
Regarding claim 26:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 25, wherein the first monitor data includes data representative of a current status of power of the first battery, and wherein the second monitor data includes data representative of a current status of power of the second battery.
As set forth above, Van der Tempel also discloses that the signal transmitters may be powered via battery and the signal transmitters can convey information regarding its battery status. See also paragraphs [0034], [0038].
Regarding claim 27:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the monitoring unit is configured to measure a signal strength associated with the first antenna monitor signal and to generate an additional first antenna status indicative of the signal strength.
See paragraph [0029] which discloses the monitoring entity measures the signal strengths of the monitoring signals. See also paragraph [0038] which discloses that the monitoring system, via an RFIC reader, measures the “current strength values of the monitor signals M”. See also paragraph [0035] which shows the measured signals strength of at least the first antenna monitor signal. As explained in paragraph [0029], the signal strength is directed from the monitoring signals M which is from the signal transmitters (first monitor device).
Regarding claim 28:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the first and second switches are controlled by the monitoring unit.
As set forth in Van der Tempel, a switch is used in order to transmit signals among the antennas and monitoring unit and other entities. See Figure 5 and paragraph [0037].
Evans discloses of a controller monitoring the “health’ status of the amplifiers and controls the switch position according to the status. See col. 3, lines 29-32. As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include switches for the purpose of allowing or diverting signals based on the antenna status. Thus, since the monitoring unit of Van der Tempel already discloses of monitoring for malfunctions (see paragraph [0029]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the switches to be controlled by the monitoring unit as discussed above.
Regarding claim 29:
An antenna monitoring system comprising:
Van der Tempel is directed to a monitoring system for a distributed antenna system. See the abstract, paragraph [0001] and Figure 3.
a plurality of monitor devices configured to facilitate monitoring operation of a plurality of antennas, a monitor device of the plurality of monitor devices configured to transmit an antenna monitor signal via a corresponding antenna of the plurality of antennas;
Van der Tempel discloses a plurality of signal transmitters (monitor devcies) including a first signal transmitter (first monitor device) 10A (see Fig. 3) and a second signal transmitter 10B (second monitor device). See paragraph [0040-0041] and Figure 1 of Van der Tempel which shows that the antenna monitor signal (i.e. monitoring signal A) is transmitted from the signal transmitter (first monitor device) to the antenna A before being transmitted to the monitoring units 11,12. See paragraphs [0027-0028]. See also Figure 3.
Van der Tempel discloses the monitoring signal includes identification information of the signal transmitter which is used to identify the source of the monitoring signal M. Paragraphs [0026]. See also Figure 4 and 6. Thus, the antenna monitoring signal includes first/second monitor data associated with the first/second monitor device.
a monitoring unit configured to: receive the antenna monitor signal transmitted by the monitor device and, responsive to receiving the antenna monitor signal, generate a first antenna status indicating a normal operational status of the antenna; and
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], in one example, the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. Van der Tempel also discloses the monitoring signals include signal strength that may be measured by the monitoring system. Van der Tempel states that initial signal strength values are stored for each signal transmitter and deviations from the initial values may indicate a malfunction.
As set forth in paragraph [0013], the monitoring system is configured to monitor the operational status of the distributed antenna system and to report malfunctions.
Thus, the monitoring unit is configured to determine a first and second antenna status based upon both receipt (signal strength) (normal operational status of the antenna) and non-receipt (signal no longer received). See also paragraphs [0035-0038] and paragraph [0042].
responsive to at least one of failing to receive the antenna monitor signal or a determination that a signal strength of the antenna monitor signal satisfies a signal strength threshold, generate a second antenna status indicating a defective operational status of the antenna; and
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. Van der Tempel further discloses that the monitoring entity determines the signal strength of the monitoring signals and uses this information in order to determine the operational status. See paragraph [0013]. See also paragraph [0042] which discloses that this indicates a malfunction (i.e. the antennas status is defective). In addition, the status can be based upon the signal strength as disclosed in paragraph [0029] and paragraphs [0035-0038]. See also paragraphs [0012 and 0018]
a plurality of switches configured to placed in proximity with the plurality of antennas, a switch of the plurality of switches configured to: in a first state, permit the antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and in a second state, divert the antenna monitor signal to a dummy load.
The Examiner notes that Van der Tempel discloses of a switch placed in proximity with the first antenna and to permit the first antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit. Specifically, as set forth in paragraph [0024] a switching matrix is used to distribute signals from the network antennas. See also Figures 2 and 5 and paragraph [0037] which discloses the transmission of signal using the switching matrix.
The Examiner notes that the use of switches to divert based on failure is known in the prior art. For example, Evan is directed to an amplifier and antenna system in which upon a failure of an amplifier, the output of the failed amplifier is directed by the switch to a dump load while the output of an operating amplifier is directed to the antenna. See the abstract and col. 1, lines 64 – col. 2, line 20. See also col. 3, lines 35-56.
Van der Tempel does not specifically disclose of a switch to divert the first antenna signal to a dummy load. The Examiner notes that although Evans is directed to failure of an amplifier, the teachings show that it was known to divert a signal using a switch to a dummy load upon failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a function to the switch to Van der Tempel for diverting the antenna monitor signal to a dummy load upon failure. As explained by Van der Tempel, the monitoring entity can already detect a malfunction with one or more parts of the DAS. See paragraph [0029]. Van der Tempel already discloses that the monitoring system does not receive the monitoring signal M from the signal transmitters. Thus, diverting the signal to a dummy load upon failure would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it would indicate a failure in the system. In addition, this would also improve the efficiency of the system with respect to diverting signals from malfunctioning antennas.
Regarding claim 30:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 29, wherein the plurality of switches are controlled by the monitoring unit.
As set forth in Van der Tempel, a switch is used in order to transmit signals among the antennas and monitoring unit and other entities. See Figure 5 and paragraph [0037].
Evans discloses of a controller monitoring the “health’ status of the amplifiers and controls the switch position according to the status. See col. 3, lines 29-32. As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include switches for the purpose of allowing or diverting signals based on the antenna status. Thus, since the monitoring unit of Van der Tempel already discloses of monitoring for malfunctions (see paragraph [0029]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the switches to be controlled by the monitoring unit as discussed above.
Regarding claim 31:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 30, wherein the plurality of switches are wirelessly controlled by the monitoring unit.
The Examiner notes that with reference to Figures 1 and 3, Van der Tempel discloses both a wired and wireless connection. See paragraph [0008] which discloses that the communication is with a wireless radio network.
Regarding claim 32:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 29, wherein diverting the antenna monitor signal to the dummy load causes the antenna monitor signal to be attenuated by at least 30 dB.
The Examiner notes that Van der Tempel as set forth in paragraph [0035] discloses that the monitor signal M may be different and ranges between various ‘dB’ amounts. In some of the example, the signal is at least 30 dB. Thus, if the antenna monitor signal is diverted to a dummy load as set forth above, then the monitor signal is attenuated by at least 30 dB.
Regarding claim 35:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 29, wherein the monitoring unit is further configured to measure the signal strength of the antenna monitor signal.
See paragraph [0029] which discloses the monitoring entity measures the signal strengths of the monitoring signals. See also paragraph [0038] which discloses that the monitoring system, via an RFIC reader, measures the “current strength values of the monitor signals M”. See also paragraph [0035] which shows the measured signals strength of at least the first antenna monitor signal. As explained in paragraph [0029], the signal strength is directed from the monitoring signals M which is from the signal transmitters (first monitor device).
Regarding claim 39:
A method of operating an antenna monitoring system, the method comprising:
Van der Tempel is directed to a monitoring system for a distributed antenna system. See the abstract, paragraph [0001] and Figure 3.
by a monitor device of a plurality of monitor devices configured to facilitate monitoring operation of a plurality of antennas, transmitting an antenna monitor signal via a corresponding antenna of the plurality of antennas;
Van der Tempel discloses a plurality of signal transmitters (monitor devcies) including a first signal transmitter (first monitor device) 10A (see Fig. 3) and a second signal transmitter 10B (second monitor device). See paragraph [0040-0041] and Figure 1 of Van der Tempel which shows that the antenna monitor signal (i.e. monitoring signal A) is transmitted from the signal transmitter (first monitor device) to the antenna A before being transmitted to the monitoring units 11,12. See paragraphs [0027-0028]. See also Figure 3.
Van der Tempel discloses the monitoring signal includes identification information of the signal transmitter which is used to identify the source of the monitoring signal M. Paragraphs [0026]. See also Figure 4 and 6. Thus, the antenna monitoring signal includes first/second monitor data associated with the first/second monitor device.
by a monitoring unit: at a first time: receiving the antenna monitor signal transmitted by the monitor device; and responsive to receiving the antenna monitor signal, generating a first antenna status indicating a normal operational status of the antenna; and at a second time:
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], in one example, the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. Van der Tempel also discloses the monitoring signals include signal strength that may be measured by the monitoring system. Van der Tempel states that initial signal strength values are stored for each signal transmitter and deviations from the initial values may indicate a malfunction.
As set forth in paragraph [0013], the monitoring system is configured to monitor the operational status of the distributed antenna system and to report malfunctions.
Thus, the monitoring unit is configured to determine a first and second antenna status based upon both receipt (signal strength) (normal operational status of the antenna) and non-receipt (signal no longer received). See also paragraphs [0035-0038] and paragraph [0042].
responsive to at least one of failing to receive the antenna monitor signal or determining that a signal strength of the antenna monitor signal satisfies a signal strength threshold, generating a second antenna status indicating a defective operational status of the antenna; and
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. Van der Tempel further discloses that the monitoring entity determines the signal strength of the monitoring signals and uses this information in order to determine the operational status. See paragraph [0013]. See also paragraph [0042] which discloses that this indicates a malfunction (i.e. the antennas status is defective). In addition, the status can be based upon the signal strength as disclosed in paragraph [0029] and paragraphs [0035-0038]. See also paragraphs [0012 and 0018]
by a switch of a plurality of switches configured to placed in proximity with the plurality of antennas: at a third time, permitting the antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit; and at a fourth time, diverting the antenna monitor signal to a dummy load.
The Examiner notes that Van der Tempel discloses of a switch placed in proximity with the first antenna and to permit the first antenna monitor signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit. Specifically, as set forth in paragraph [0024] a switching matrix is used to distribute signals from the network antennas. See also Figures 2 and 5 and paragraph [0037] which discloses the transmission of signal using the switching matrix. In addition, Van der Tempel discloses of permitting an antenna monitoring signal to be transmitted to the monitoring unit. See paragraph [0024-0029]
The Examiner notes that the use of switches to divert based on failure is known in the prior art. For example, Evan is directed to an amplifier and antenna system in which upon a failure of an amplifier, the output of the failed amplifier is directed by the switch to a dump load while the output of an operating amplifier is directed to the antenna. See the abstract and col. 1, lines 64 – col. 2, line 20. See also col. 3, lines 35-56.
Van der Tempel does not specifically disclose of a switch to divert the first antenna signal to a dummy load. The Examiner notes that although Evans is directed to failure of an amplifier, the teachings show that it was known to divert a signal using a switch to a dummy load upon failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a function to the switch to Van der Tempel for diverting the antenna monitor signal to a dummy load upon failure. As explained by Van der Tempel, the monitoring entity can already detect a malfunction with one or more parts of the DAS. See paragraph [0029]. Van der Tempel already discloses that the monitoring system does not receive the monitoring signal M from the signal transmitters. Thus, diverting the signal to a dummy load upon failure would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it would indicate a failure in the system. In addition, this would also improve the efficiency of the system with respect to diverting signals from malfunctioning antennas.
Regarding claim 40:
The method of claim 38, wherein the plurality of switches are controlled by the monitoring unit.
As set forth in Van der Tempel, a switch is used in order to transmit signals among the antennas and monitoring unit and other entities. See Figure 5 and paragraph [0037].
Evans discloses of a controller monitoring the “health’ status of the amplifiers and controls the switch position according to the status. See col. 3, lines 29-32. As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include switches for the purpose of allowing or diverting signals based on the antenna status. Thus, since the monitoring unit of Van der Tempel already discloses of monitoring for malfunctions (see paragraph [0029]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the switches to be controlled by the monitoring unit as discussed above.
Claim(s) 23, 24, 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Tempel in view of Evans and further in view of Abouzid et al. US Patent Pub. 2012/0322501.
Regarding claim 23:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the monitoring unit is further configured to store, in an antenna status database, a database entry representing the first antenna status or the second antenna status.
Van der Tempel in paragraph [0028] discloses a monitoring system includes a database DB and a processor for analyzing the received monitoring signals M. As set forth in paragraph [0033], the signal transmitter’s tag IDs are stored in the database along with information about the DAS trajectory. See also Figure 4 and paragraphs [0035-0038].
The Examiner notes that to the extent the entries in the database of Van der Tempel is not considered “indicating a status of the first antenna” the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to indicate the status of the antenna based on the teachings of Van der Tempel. This reasoning is supported by the fact that Van der Tempel already concludes that certain antennas are below a signal threshold level or that they malfunctioned and for sending alerts regarding the antenna status (see paragraphs [0018] and [0038]). Since Van der Tempel already discloses a database with entries associated with the signal transmitter (monitoring device), it would have been obvious to further indicate the status as an entry in the same database.
Nonetheless, the Examiner notes that Abouzid is directed to an antenna monitoring system in which, based on the received signals from an antenna monitoring device, an entry can be included which indicates a status of the first antennas. See Figure 5 of Abouzid which shows that the status of the first antenna is “No Alarm” whereas the status of the 3rd monitor device and antenna is “Low Alarm” and the status of the 300th monitor device and antenna sis “Major Alarm”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate a status of the antenna. As explained in paragraph [0048] of Abouzid, the antenna monitor system monitors the function of the antenna based on the revied signal information from the tag (monitor device). Based on this information, the status, as shown in figure 5, is updated to reflect the correct status. See also the abstract which discloses that the measuring includes the antenna identification and corresponding signal strength.
Thus, both Van der Tempel and Abouzid discloses of measuring signal strength and making determinations based on the signal strength. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the combination would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded a predictable results since Van der Tempel already discloses of the use of database to store information pertaining to the signal transmitters as well as performing measuring and determining that certain antennas are malfunctions and/or deviate from initial signal strength values that would indicate a problem with the antenna. Thus, indicating this in the database would have been obvious as disclosed by Abouzid. As disclosed by Abouzid, this allows for an improved management of the network. See paragraph [0010]
Regarding claim 24:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 23, wherein: the first monitor device periodically and once within each of successive predetermined periods of time transmits the first antenna monitor signal;
Van der Tempel discloses that the monitoring signal is transmitted repeatedly at periodic intervals (within a predetermined time period). See paragraph [0010]
the second monitor device periodically and once within each of successive predetermined periods of time transmits the second antenna monitor signal;
Van der Tempel discloses that the monitoring signal is transmitted repeatedly at periodic intervals (within a predetermined time period). See paragraph [0010]
responsive to receiving the first antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the first antenna status indicating the operational status of the first antenna and stores the database entry representing the operational status of the first antenna; responsive to receiving the second antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the second antenna status indicating an operational status of the second antenna and stores the database entry representing the operational status of the second antenna;
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. This includes signals strengths of the monitoring signals. Van der Tempel states that initial signal strength values are stored for each signal transmitter and deviations from the initial values may also indicate a malfunction. Thus, the monitoring unit is configured to determine a first antenna status based upon both receipt (signal strength) and non-received (signal no longer received). See also paragraphs [0035-0038] and paragraph [0042]
As explained in paragraph [0012], the database contains all information about the tags and the current strength values of the monitoring signals M. See also paragraphs [0035-0038] which shows the store of information of the antennas status based on signal strength. See also Figure 4.
The Examiner notes that to the extent the entries in the database of Van der Tempel is not considered “indicating a status of the first antenna” the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to indicate the status of the antenna based on the teachings of Van der Tempel. This reasoning is supported by the fact that Van der Tempel already concludes that certain antennas are below a signal threshold level or that they malfunctioned. Since Van der Tempel already discloses a database with entries associated with the signal transmitter (monitoring device), it would have been obvious to further indicate the status.
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to store “a first antenna status entry” as shown in at least figure 5 of Abouzid.
The Examiner notes that Abouzid is directed to an antenna monitoring system in which based on the received signals from an antenna monitoring device, an entry can be included which indicates a status of the first antennas. See Figure 5 of Abouzid which shows that the status of the first antenna is “No Alarm” whereas the status of the 3rd monitor device and antenna is “Low Alarm” and the status of the 300th monitor device and antenna sis “Major Alarm”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate a status of the antenna. As explained in paragraph [0048] of Abouzid, the antenna monitor system monitors the function of the antenna based on the revied signal information from the tag (monitor device). Based on this information, the status, as shown in figure 5, is updated to reflect the correct status. See also the abstract which discloses that the measuring includes the antenna identification and corresponding signal strength. Thus, both Van der Tempel and Abouzid discloses of measuring signal strength and making determinations based on the signal strength. Therefore, the examiner finds that the combination would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded a predictable results since Van der Tempel already discloses of performing measuring and determining that certain antennas are malfunctions and/or deviate from initial signal strength values that would indicate a problem with the antenna. Thus, indicating this in the database would have been obvious as disclosed by Abouzid. As disclosed by Abouzid, this allows for an improved management of the network. See paragraph [0010]
responsive to failing to receive the first antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the first antenna status indicating a defective status of the first antenna and stores a database entry representing the defective status of the first antenna; and
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. This includes signals strengths of the monitoring signals. Thus, the monitoring unit is configured to fail to receive (“signal no longer received”) the first antenna signal. See also paragraph [0042] which discloses that this indicates a malfunction (i.e. the antennas status is defective).
As explained in paragraph [0012], the database contains all information about the tags and the current strength values of the monitoring signals M.
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to store “a first antenna status entry” as shown in at least figure 5 of Abouzid.
responsive to failing to receive the second antenna monitor signal, the monitoring unit generates the second antenna status indicating the defective status of the second antenna and stores a database entry representing the defective status of the second antenna.
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. This includes signal strengths of the monitoring signals. Thus, the monitoring unit is configured to fail to receive (“signal no longer received”) the first antenna signal. See also paragraph [0042] which discloses that this indicates a malfunction (i.e. the antennas status is defective). As explained in paragraph [0012], the database contains all information about the tags and the current strength values of the monitoring signals M.
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to store “a first antenna status entry” as shown in at least figure 5 of Abouzid.
Regarding claim 33:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 29, wherein the monitoring unit is further configured to store, in an antenna status database, a database entry representing the first antenna status or the second antenna status.
Van der Tempel in paragraph [0028] discloses a monitoring system includes a database DB and a processor for analyzing the received monitoring signals M. As set forth in paragraph [0033], the signal transmitter’s tag IDs are stored in the database along with information about the DAS trajectory. See also Figure 4 and paragraphs [0035-0038].
The Examiner notes that to the extent the entries in the database of Van der Tempel is not considered “indicating a status of the first antenna” the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to indicate the status of the antenna based on the teachings of Van der Tempel. This reasoning is supported by the fact that Van der Tempel already concludes that certain antennas are below a signal threshold level or that they malfunctioned and for sending alerts regarding the antenna status (see paragraphs [0018] and [0038]). Since Van der Tempel already discloses a database with entries associated with the signal transmitter (monitoring device), it would have been obvious to further indicate the status as an entry in the same database.
Nonetheless, the Examiner notes that Abouzid is directed to an antenna monitoring system in which, based on the received signals from an antenna monitoring device, an entry can be included which indicates a status of the first antennas. See Figure 5 of Abouzid which shows that the status of the first antenna is “No Alarm” whereas the status of the 3rd monitor device and antenna is “Low Alarm” and the status of the 300th monitor device and antenna sis “Major Alarm”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate a status of the antenna. As explained in paragraph [0048] of Abouzid, the antenna monitor system monitors the function of the antenna based on the revied signal information from the tag (monitor device). Based on this information, the status, as shown in figure 5, is updated to reflect the correct status. See also the abstract which discloses that the measuring includes the antenna identification and corresponding signal strength.
Thus, both Van der Tempel and Abouzid discloses of measuring signal strength and making determinations based on the signal strength. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the combination would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded a predictable results since Van der Tempel already discloses of the use of database to store information pertaining to the signal transmitters as well as performing measuring and determining that certain antennas are malfunctions and/or deviate from initial signal strength values that would indicate a problem with the antenna. Thus, indicating this in the database would have been obvious as disclosed by Abouzid. As disclosed by Abouzid, this allows for an improved management of the network. See paragraph [0010]
Regarding claim 34:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 33, wherein the monitoring unit is further configured to store, in the antenna status database, data relating to a location of the antenna.
As set forth in paragraph [0007], Abouzid discloses that the database contains an antenna location database in which the antennas and the corresponding antenna locations are provided. See also paragraphs [0009-0010]. See also Fig. 5 and 8.
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use of database to store information pertaining to the signal transmitters as well as performing measuring and determining that certain antennas are malfunctions and/or deviate from initial signal strength values that would indicate a problem with the antenna. As explained by Abouzid, having the antennas in a location database will help improve inventory management of antennas. See paragraphs [0010].
Claim(s) 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Tempel in view of Evans and further in view of Abouzid et al. and further in view of Leaf US Patent 10,979,155.
Regarding claim 36:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 29, wherein the monitor device is configured to transmit the antenna monitor signal responsive to being polled by the monitoring unit.
See paragraph [0040-0041] and Figure 1 of Van der Tempel which shows that the antenna monitor signal (i.e. monitoring signal A) is transmitted from the signal transmitter to the antenna A before being transmitted to the monitoring units 11/12; see Figure 3
The Examiner notes that Van der Tempel does not specifically disclose where the monitoring unit is configured to transmit the antenna monitor signal responsive to being polled by the monitoring unit.
Nonetheless, Leaf discloses of an antenna monitoring system (which includes a transceiver for polling and receiving monitored data) in which remote computing system can poll one or more transmitters. In addition, Leaf discloses that this transmission can occur via wired network. See col. 15, lines 6-16. As explained, there are multiple transmitters that can be polled (each transmitter is associated with a specific antenna.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the monitoring unit to transmit the antenna monitor signal responsive to being polled by the monitoring unit. Leaf explains that it was known for having a system in which a monitoring device polls monitor device and where the monitor device can send monitor data without being polled. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it predicable to have the monitoring device poll each monitor device as taught by Leaf. This allows the monitoring system (remote computer system) to specifically inquire whether each antenna is functioning properly. As explained above by Leaf, both methods (poll or without having been polled) were known in the art and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered both methods based on the needs of the system and desired monitoring timing.
Regarding claim 37:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 36, wherein the monitoring unit is configured to generate the second antenna status responsive to a failure to receive the antenna monitor signal after a predetermined number of polls of the monitor device.
Van der Tempel discloses a signal receiver 11 and a monitoring entity 12 (monitoring unit) for receiving the respective monitoring signals from the signal transmitters. See paragraphs [0027-0028].
As explained in paragraph [0029], the monitoring entity may detect that monitoring signals M from one or more signal transmitters are no longer received which indicates a malfunction with the DAS. This includes signals strengths of the monitoring signals. Thus, the monitoring unit is configured to fail to receive (“signal no longer received”) the first antenna signal. See also paragraph [0042] which discloses that this indicates a malfunction (i.e. the antennas status is defective).
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to poll the monitor devices as disclosed by Leaf. With respect to ”after a predetermined number of polls”. Leaf discloses that the monitoring and transmission of monitoring data can be performed periodically. See col. 15, lines 1-5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the number of polls that occurs within a predetermined time period. This allows the system to know in real or in substantially in real time whether an antenna is working as intended or whether it is not working anymore. As set forth above, Van der Tempel as well Leaf, all pertain to antenna monitoring system as well as transmitting and receiving signal which allowing the system to determine whether an antenna is working properly. Therefore, it would it would have been predicable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set the number of polls that occur within a predetermined time period in order to quickly determine whether an antenna is working properly.
Regarding claim 38:
The antenna monitoring system of claim 36, wherein the switch comprises a first port configured to be connected to the antenna and a second port configured to be connected to a path that is connected to the monitoring unit.
As set forth in paragraph [0024], Van der Tempel discloses of a matrix signal mix arrangement which is connected to the network antennas, the spatially distributed antennas A and the monitoring unit. As illustrated in Figure 5, the matrix includes ports/connections which are connected to both the monitoring unit and the antennas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ovidio Escalante whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday - 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7537. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992