DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to the Application/Control Number: 18/264,497 filed on 08/07/2023.
Claims Status
2. This office action is based upon claims received on 11/19/2025, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
-Claims 1-20 are amended.
-Claims 1-20 are pending.
-Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of a 371 of PCT/IB2021/051095, filed 02/10/2021.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
5. Applicant's remarks/arguments, see page 8, filed on 11/19/2025, with respect to Claim Objections have been considered in light of applicant’s amendments. Claim objections pertaining to claim 1, 11 as presented in the previous office action including as pertaining to “optional for the positively processing steps”, have been withdrawn.
6. Applicant's remarks/arguments, see page 9, filed on 11/19/2025, with respect to Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 (b) have been considered in light of applicant’s amendments. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 (b) for claims 2-6, 8, 12-16, 18 as presented in the previous office action have been withdrawn.
7. Applicant's remarks/arguments, see page 9-15, filed on 11/19/2025, with respect to Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot and not persuasive because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection being used in the current rejection.
Furthermore, remarks with respect to any applicable Dependent Claims have been considered, and are moot for the same reasons noted above, and are not persuasive at least via dependency to the independent claims and via individual rejections addressing the specific claims.
The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims (see Office Action).
A. To the extent this office action relies on subject matter associated with Stephene (US 20210258977 A1) which derives identical subject matter from PCT/IB2018/054172 published 12 December 2019 as WO 2019234478 A1 i.e. “Stephene”, and Moe et al. (US 20130210447 A1) i.e. “Moe” for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the office respectfully contends applicant’s remarks/arguments directed to Stephene and Moe are not persuasive.
B. Applicant in its remarks,
I. See page 10 (ln 11-16), applicant indicates: “although Stephenne USPGPUB qualifies as prior art under 35 USC § 102 (a)(2), Stephenne USPGPUB is nevertheless disqualified by the prior art exception under 35 USC § 102(b)(2)(C) since "the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later that the effective date of the claimed invention [02/10/2021], were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, namely here TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)”.
II. See page 11 (ln 26), Page 12 (ln 1-2) using Claim 1 as an example applicant indicates: “Stephenne USPGPUB fails to teach or suggest "determining a spectral efficiency of each of the RATs based on multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO, capabilities.... "”,
and furthermore, see Page 12 (ln 15-20) using Claim 1 as an example applicant indicates:
“Stephenne USPGPUB does not disclose or suggest anything regarding "evaluating whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT meets one or more criteria of user throughput fairness and the spectral efficiency; and splitting, responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum among the different RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency by recalculating a current spectrum allocation of each RAT."”,
and furthermore, see Page 12 (ln 15-20) using Claim 1 as an example applicant indicates: “Mo does not teach or suggest the features missing from Stephenne USPGPUB” and “Moe is not even directed to MU-MIMO technology” and "determining a spectral efficiency .. . based at least in part on MU-MIMO capabilities" (emphasis added) would be outside of the scope of Moe.”
C. In response to item B I., the office action notes that subject matter identified in Stephene (US 20210258977 A1) is identified as derived from identical subject matter from PCT/IB2018/054172 with PCT filed on Jun 8, 2018 and PCT published 12 December 2019 as WO 2019234478 A1, which predates applicant’s effective filing date of 08/07/2023 and applicant’s claimed priority date pertaining to a 371 of PCT/IB2021/05109 filed 02/10/2021, with a public availability date of WO 2019234478 A1 (12 December 2019) occurring more than 1 year before applicant’s earliest claimed priority date (02/10/2021). As such, at least Stephene published as WO 2019234478 A1 disclosing identical subject matter qualifies as prior art under 102 (a) (1) as a disclosure with the Prior Public Availability Date being outside and not subject to the allowed grace period.
Furthermore applicant has not supplied a declaration/affidavit to disqualify in support of applicant’s remarks specific to Stephene (US 20210258977 A1). The office action respectfully contends that regardless of such declaration/affidavit to disqualify, Stephene published as WO 2019234478 A1 disclosing identical subject matter continues to qualify as prior art under 102 (a) (1) as noted above, and WO 2019234478 A1 is specifically referenced herein as applicable prior art in the current rejection.
D. In response to item B II., this office action respectfully contends that specific remarks individually made by applicant pertaining to Stephene and Moe are not persuasive since using claim 1 as an example (i.e. also representative of parallel features in claim 11), Stephene (WO 2019234478 A1) i.e. “Stephene”, in view of Moe et al. (US 20130210447 A1) i.e. “Moe” continues to teach and read upon each and every limitation of claim 1 as amended, inclusive of claim limitations of applicant’s contention as presented below:
Stephene teaches: A method in a first network node (Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0054 […] multi-RAT scheduler 400 performs joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B in accordance with a carrier/spectrum sharing scheme that utilizes spatial multiplexing between different RATs (e.g., multi-RAT MU-MIMO, e.g., using a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing including UE 1 and UE 2 and/or multi-RAT SU-MIMO, e.g., using UE 3)[…] the carrier/spectrum sharing scheme utilizes SDMA carrier/spectrum sharing; FIG. 5 & ¶0056 […] operation of the multi-RAT base station 102 of FIG. 4 […] provides the channel information for the UEs 112 served by RAT A to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 (step 502) […] provides the channel information for the UEs 112 served by RAT B to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 (step 506));
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: per ¶0054 i.e. multi-RAT scheduler 400 performs and per ¶0056 i.e. operation of the multi-RAT base station 102 of FIG. 4 including step 502 & step 506 reads on: A method in a first network node .
configured to share a spectrum between different radio access technologies, RATs (Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0054 See above);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: ¶0054 i.e. performs joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B in accordance with i.e. a carrier/spectrum sharing scheme reads on: configured to share a spectrum , where i.e. joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B reads on: between different radio access technologies, RATs .
the method comprising: determining a spectral efficiency of each of the RATs (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 […] including non-line-of-sight, for downlink (but similarly for uplink), the channel information for the channel between the radio unit(s) of the RAT A/B system 402/404 and a particular UE 112 includes a channel estimate vector for the channel. […] The multi-RAT scheduler 400 multiplies the transmit precoder utilized for the downlink from the RAT A system 402 to UE 1 with the channel estimate vector (vector because of multi-antennas) for UE 2 on RAT B and take the norm. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1. If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold, then UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: per FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 i.e. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference reads on: the method comprising: determining i.e. the magnitude of the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1. Furthermore i.e. If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: a spectral efficiency of each of the RATs in that i.e. RAT 1 UE interference power at UE2 is below a threshold and therefore a threshold is met to allow sharing of spectrum via SDMA (i.e. spectral efficiency condition determined) and UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B being i.e. selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing with respect to RAT A, and likewise similarly RAT A interference measured by UE2 RAT B is below threshold and therefore also i.e. spectral efficiency condition with respect to RAT B is determined.
based at least in part on (note: limitations subsequent to a recitation “at least in part on” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together) multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 See above);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold, i.e. then UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing reads on: based at least in part on multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities i.e. the threshold is determined corresponding or based upon multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing capabilities to create a pairing when i.e. the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold.
As noted, the preceding teaching addresses applicant’s remarks in B. II pertaining to “spectral efficiency” correlated to “multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities”.
of at least a second network node (note: limitations “multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities of at least a second network node” subsequent to a recitation “at least in part on” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together - Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0060 See above; ¶0055 […] the multi-RAT scheduler 400 may alternatively be implemented on a separate node, e.g., a separate node that performs multi-RAT scheduling for multiple base stations 102. Still further, the RAT A system 402 and the RAT B system 404 may alternatively be implemented in separate base stations);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: per ¶0061 i.e. the RAT A system 402 and the RAT B system 404 may alternatively be implemented in separate base stations reads on: of at least a second network node in conjunction with i.e. the multi-RAT scheduler 400 implemented on a separate node, e.g., a separate node that performs multi-RAT scheduling for multiple base stations 102.
and wireless devices, WDs, using a corresponding radio access technology, RAT (note: limitations “and wireless devices, WD” subsequent to a recitation “at least in part on” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together - Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0054 See above; ¶0055 See above);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: Per FIG. 4 & ¶0054 i.e. performs joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B in accordance with a carrier/spectrum sharing scheme that utilizes spatial multiplexing between different RATs (e.g., multi-RAT MU-MIMO, e.g., using a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing i.e. including UE 1 and UE 2 reads on: and wireless devices, WD, (22) using a corresponding radio access technology, RAT as associated with RAT A and second node 402 or Second node 404 RAT B.
evaluating whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT meets one or more criteria of user throughput fairness and the spectral efficiency (Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0051 […] The carrier/spectrum sharing scheme disclosed herein utilizes multi-RAT MU-MIMO and/or multi-RAT SU-MIMO to enable carrier/spectrum sharing between two or more RATs by using spatial division multiplexing between the RATs on the same time-frequency resources […] scheduling) is jointly performed for the RATs or coordinated among the RATs to ensure that: ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources, are only allowed when the downlink channels on the different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal to allow for an overall increase in the system performance (throughput and/or latency and/or reliability) through good enough reception at the user terminals of the signals on the different RATs. […] being sufficiently orthogonal, simulations or historical observations can be used to learn that when the correlation coefficient between estimated channel vectors (antenna elements) is below a certain level, MU-MIMO increases performance (e.g., throughput, reliability, or the like) on average ; ¶0054 See above; ¶0055 See above; ¶0062 […] the channel information and, optionally, additional information (e.g., information regarding transmit or receiver precoders), the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function in doing radio resource allocation. The utility function may be, for example, cell throughput, reliability, latency, or the like, or any weighted combination thereof);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: As applied to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 or UE1 and Ue2 on a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing, per ¶0051 i.e. scheduling is jointly performed for the RATs or coordinated among the RATs to ensure that: ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources, i.e. are only allowed when the downlink channels on the different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal reads on: evaluating that different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal. Furthermore, per ¶0052 i.e. the different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal with respect to per ¶0052 i.e. Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources reads on: whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT with regards to i.e. transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency (SDMA). Furthermore, per ¶0052 scheduling being i.e. being sufficiently orthogonal, i.e. when the correlation coefficient between estimated channel vectors (antenna elements) is below a certain level, MU-MIMO increases performance on average reads on: meets one or more criteria and furthermore i.e. MU-MIMO increases performance (e.g., throughput reads on: of user throughput , where furthermore i.e. enable carrier/spectrum sharing between two or more RATs by using spatial division multiplexing between the RATs on the same time-frequency resources and per ¶0062 i.e. the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function i.e. for example, cell throughput, reliability, latency, or the like, or any weighted combination thereof reads on: fairness at least with respect to equal sharing of spectrum resources (SDMA) and maximizing cell throughput, reliability, latency. Furthermore i.e. MU-MIMO increases performance (e.g., throughput, reliability) on SDMA i.e. enabled by per ¶0059 i.e. the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold, leading to i.e. UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B being i.e. selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing reads on: the spectral efficiency as applied to the even spectral usage via SDMA i.e. between RATs where at least reliability or efficiency is increased.
As noted, the preceding teaching addresses applicant’s remarks in B. II pertaining to “evaluating whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT meets one or more criteria of user throughput fairness and the spectral efficiency”.
and splitting, responsive to the one or more criteria the shared spectrum different RATs (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0054 See above; ¶0059 See above; ¶0068 […] FIGS. 4 and 5, the multi-RAT scheduler 400 is used to perform joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: per ¶0059 If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold where per ¶0054 i.e. the carrier/spectrum sharing scheme utilizes SDMA carrier/spectrum sharing and per ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources reads on: and splitting utilizing SDMA. Furthermore the carrier/spectrum sharing being ¶0051 i.e. scheduling is jointly performed for the RATs or coordinated among the RATs to ensure that: ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources, i.e. are only allowed when the downlink channels on the different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal i.e. when the correlation coefficient between estimated channel vectors (antenna elements) is below a certain level, MU-MIMO increases performance on average reads on: responsive to the one or more criteria. Furthermore per ¶0065 i.e. a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 where per ¶0068 the multi-RAT scheduler 400 is used to perform joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B and per ¶0054 i.e. a carrier/spectrum sharing scheme that utilizes spatial multiplexing between different RATs (e.g., multi-RAT MU-MIMO, e.g., using a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing including UE 1 and UE 2 and ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources all read on: the shared spectrum among the RATs where UE 1 pertains to RAT A and UE2 pertains to RAT B.
based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency of each RAT (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 See above; ¶0065 […] scheduler 400 provides scheduling information to the RAT A system 402 (step 512) and to the RAT B system 404 (step 514) […] includes, for each identified multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing, information that indicates the UE 112 (e.g., UE 1) on RAT A that is included in the multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing and information that indicates a set of time-frequency resources scheduled for the UE 112 (e.g., UE 1) on RAT A that is included in the multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing ; ¶0068 See above);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: per FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold i.e. then reads on: based at least in part on If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold, then UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing. Furthermore per ¶0059 therefore i.e. interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: the determined spectral efficiency of each RAT in that the determined spectral efficiency i.e. RAT 1 UE interference power at UE2 is below a threshold and therefore a determined spectral efficiency with respect to RAT A, and likewise similarly RAT A interference measured by UE2 RAT B is below threshold and therefore also spectral efficiency with respect to RAT B, is a precondition to be met to allow a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing for SDMA sharing of spectrum.
As noted, the preceding teaching addresses applicant’s remarks in B. II pertaining to “evaluating whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT meets one or more criteria of user throughput fairness and the spectral efficiency; and splitting, responsive to” “the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum different RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency” “of each RAT”. The missing portions not to explicitly taught or strongly suggested by Stephene i.e. “responsive to a violation” and “by recalculating a current spectrum allocation” as noted below, attributed to teachings of Moe presented in combination.
This office action furthermore notes:
while Stephene teaches: splitting, responsive to the one or more criteria the shared spectrum among the different RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency of each RAT, Stephene appears not to explicitly address splitting, responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum, and subsequently where the splitting is based at least in part on applying i.e. by recalculating a current spectrum allocation. Therefore the office action respectfully contends that:
Stephene does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (i.e. Note: See italicized portions): splitting, responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum different RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency by recalculating a current spectrum allocation of each RAT;
Furthermore, this office action respectfully further contends that while prior art Moe combined below teaches spectral efficiency of each of the RATs, but appears to lack additional defining features and specifics such as being based at least in part on multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities, i.e. the features and the specifics already taught by Stephene in combination, significantly i.e. prior art Moe however teaches claim elements noted above which are not explicitly taught by Stephene, via teachings of Moe presented below in combination for reasons noted further below, in that:
Moe teaches: determining a spectral efficiency of each of the RATs (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & ¶0022 […] a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 based on load in the different cells 13,15,17. Thus, if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 parts or all of a shared frequency band is allocated to the second cell 15. This allocation of the radio resource within the radio base station 12 leads to a more efficient use of resources within the radio communications network improving the performance of the active UE 10,14,16 in the radio communications network. A shared frequency band here means that the frequency band may be allocated to any of the supported radio access technologies [...] Heavy load may be defined as a load that exceeds a load threshold value of load, which load threshold value may be preset or dynamically, set according to statistics or in relation to maximum possible or available radio resources; ¶0026 […] radio base station 12 supports a frequency band that may be allocated to the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 […] Step 201. The radio base station 12 determines a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15. The load may here be defined as number of user equipments in an idle mode and/or an active mode, number of handovers, amount of data transmitted within a cell, indication of packet delay, length of buffer queue, level of transmission power, ratio of physical resource utilization […] load may also be defined as the amount of user equipment support a certain radio access technology. Step 202. The radio base station 12 allocates the radio resource to the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 based on the determined load; ¶0027 […] the load may change in the different cells 13, 15 and the radio base station 12 then adjusts the allocation of the radio resource corresponding to the changed load in the cell);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: i.e. per ¶0026 i.e. Step 201. The radio base station 12 determines a load reads on: determining a spectral efficiency which could be i.e. ratio of physical resource utilization or amount of data transmitted within a cell, indication of packet delay or the amount of user equipment support a certain radio access technology in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15. Furthermore, that per ¶0026 i.e. determines a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15 which correspond to i.e. the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 reads on: of each of the RATs .
based at least in part on at least a second network node (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG2 & FIG. 8 ¶0062 […] a controller unit 801 arranged to control a first RAT 1 Base Band unit 803. The first RAT 1 Base Band unit 803 supports communication over a frequency band of the first radio access technology […] control a second RAT 2 Base Band unit 804. The second RAT 2 Base Band unit 804 supports communication over a frequency band of the second radio access technology);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: i.e. Base Band unit 803 or Base Band unit 804 reads on: based at least in part on at least a second network node specific to each RAT.
and wireless devices, WDs, using a corresponding radio access technology, RAT (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & FIG. 8 ¶0026 See above; ¶0063 […] radio base station 12 determines load in the first cell 13 and second cell 15, for example, based on communication from a first user equipment 10 and second user equipment 14);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: per FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & FIG. 8 i.e. a first user equipment 10 and second user equipment 14 reads on: and wireless devices, WDs where Per FIG. 1, 2, 8 equipments 10 and 14 correspond to communication with per ¶0026 the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 reads on: using a corresponding radio access technology, RAT.
evaluating whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT meets one or more criteria of user throughput fairness and the spectral efficiency (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & ¶0022 See above; ¶0026 see above);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: per ¶0026 i.e. radio base station 12 determines reads on: evaluating a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15. Furthermore i.e. determines a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15 where per ¶0022 i.e. if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 parts reads on: whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT with respect to the load on the allocated spectrum for the respective cell. Furthermore per ¶0026 i.e. determines a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15, where per ¶0022 i.e. if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 parts where per ¶0022 i.e. Heavy load may be defined as a load that exceeds a load threshold value of load reads on: meets one or more criteria, and per ¶0026 i.e. The load may here be defined as i.e. amount of data transmitted within a cell reads on: of user throughput fairness with respect to number of user equipments in an active mode such as per ¶0063 radio base station 12 determines load in the first cell 13 and second cell 15, i.e. based on communication from a first user equipment 10 and second user equipment 14. Furthermore and per ¶0026 i.e. The load may here be defined as i.e. amount of data transmitted within a cell and i.e. loads as indication of packet delay reads on: and the spectral efficiency applied to allocated spectrum.
and splitting, responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum different RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency by recalculating a current spectrum allocation of each RAT (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & ¶0022 See above; ¶0026 see above […] Step 202. The radio base station 12 allocates the radio resource to the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 based on the determined load. The radio resource supports communication over the frequency band and may be defined as a radio frequency, a radio frequency band. The radio resource may also be defined as a radio equipment within the radio base station such as a base band unit supporting communication over a certain radio frequency or frequency band, a radio unit comprising an antenna or other radio equipment supporting communication over the frequency band. Thus, the radio base station 12 may allocate a radio frequency of the frequency band supporting communication over the frequency band.);
Which the office action respectfully contends and notes discloses: per ¶0022 i.e. a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 based on load in the different cells 13,15,17 and per ¶0026 step 202 i.e. The radio base station 12 allocates the radio resource to the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 reads on: and splitting the frequency band or spectrum. Furthermore, per ¶0026 i.e. Heavy load may be defined as a load that exceeds a load threshold value of load where i.e. if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 reads on: responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria associated with load a defined. Furthermore per ¶0022 i.e. a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 based on load in the different cells 13,15,17. Thus, if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 i.e. parts or all of a shared frequency band is allocated to the second cell 15 reads on: the shared spectrum i.e. are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 reads on: among the different RATs. Furthermore or per ¶0026 i.e. The radio base station 12 allocates based on the determined load or per ¶0022 i.e. a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 i.e. based on load in the different cells 13,15,17 reads on: based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency which as noted load may be defined as i.e. amount of data transmitted within a cell and i.e. loads as indication of packet delay or efficiency associated with the spectrum allocated. Furthermore per ¶0027 i.e. the load may change in the different cells 13, 15 and the radio base station 12 then adjusts the allocation of the radio resource reads on: by recalculating a current spectrum allocation corresponding to the changed load in the cells reads on: of each RAT where each cell corresponds to a RAT.
E. As such, the office action respectfully contends that applicant’s remarks & arguments as cited are not persuasive since contrary to applicant’s assertion, Stephene in view of Moe as relied upon teaches and reads upon each and every limitation of claim 1 (i.e. also representative of parallel features in claim 11) in combination, including specific limitations of applicant’s contention as referenced.
As presented and identified above Stephene already addresses
“determining a spectral efficiency of each of the RATs based at least in part on multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities”, and “evaluating whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT meets one or more criteria of user throughput fairness and the spectral efficiency; and splitting, responsive to” “the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum different RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency” “of each RAT”.
Furthermore, the missing portions not to explicitly taught or strongly suggested by Stephene i.e. “responsive to a violation” and “by recalculating a current spectrum allocation” as noted above, are attributed to teachings of Moe which addresses these features from the same field of endeavor in combination with the teachings Stephene.
Furthermore, since the rejection is presented in combination, regarding applicant’s remarks “Moe is not even directed to MU-MIMO technology”, the office action respectfully contends that applicant’s arguments against Moe are directed against the references individually, and one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references used to address the rejection of applicant’s claims (See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Furthermore, the office action respectfully notes and contends that while applicant’s specific remarks are addressed as noted above, applicant’s remarks have not addressed why the teachings of Stephene and Moe as presented and combined in this office action, would not apply to the entirety of the claim 1 limitations recited.
F. Applicant is respectfully directed to the new grounds of rejection of claims now presented under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephene (WO 2019234478 A1) i.e. “Stephene”, in view of Moe et al. (US 20130210447 A1), “Moe”, where the disclosure of each and every limitation of Claim 1 as amended is taught and rejected.
The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims (see Office Action).
Claim Objections
8. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. Claims 1, 11 now each recite “the shared spectrum with an article “the” prior to “shared spectrum” for the first time subsequent to Claim 1 and Claim 11 both reciting “configured to share a spectrum between different radio access technologies, RATs”, where to avoid questions raised on antecedence, “the shared spectrum” is interpreted as “the” “spectrum” “shared” finding antecedence in a result of a step conveyed in “configured to share a spectrum”.
Applicant is requested to review and address any questions raised and verify applicant’s objective for the referred to claim language. Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible.
B. Claim 3 recites “each RAT to achieve [[a]] user throughput fairness” where parallel features in Claim 13 recites “each RAT to achieve [[a]] the user throughput fairness”, where to avoid questions raised on antecedence, “user throughput fairness” in claim 3 is interpreted as possible intended as “the” “user throughput fairness” finding antecedence in Claim 1.
Applicant is requested to review and address any questions raised and verify applicant’s objective for the referred to claim language. Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible.
C. Claims 9, 19 each recite “each RAT based at least in part on the comparison” with an article “the” prior to “comparison” for the first time subsequent to Claim 9 and Claim 19 both reciting “comparing the MU-MIMO based utility function for each RAT”, where to avoid questions raised on antecedence, “the comparison” is interpreted as possibly finding antecedence in a comparison implied in “comparing the MU-MIMO based utility function”.
Applicant is requested to review and address any questions raised and verify applicant’s objective for the referred to claim language. Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A. Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 11, 13, 14, 18-20:
Independent Claim 1 and independent claim 11 each recite terms “each RAT” a first time and subsequently a second time, with respective dependent claims 3, 4, 8-10, 13, 14, 18-20 subsequently all reciting instances of “each RAT”. This office action respectfully contends a lack of clarity as to where each recitation of terms “each RAT” after a recitation of “each RAT” the first time in respective independent claim finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of the “each RAT” the first time in claim 1 and claim 11, respectively serve as antecedent basis for subsequent recitations of “each RAT” in claim 1, claim 11 and dependent claims as noted, or whether the subsequent recitations of “each RAT” in claim 1, claim 11 and dependent claims noted, each refer to a separate instance of “each RAT” different from the “each RAT” recited the first time in claim 1 and claim 11.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
B. Claim 7, and claim 17 each recite terms “each group” a first time and subsequently a second time, interpreted as referring to “MU-MIMO groups” in claim 4 and claim 14. This office action respectfully contends a lack of clarity as to where recitation of terms “each group” the second time after a recitation of “each group” the first time finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of the “each group” the first time, serves as the antecedent basis for subsequent recitations of “each group” the second time, or whether the subsequent recitations of “each group” the second time refer to separate instances of “each group” different from the “each group” recited the first time.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
F. Regarding Claims 2-10, 12-20, which depend from respective independent claims 1, 11, these claims (i.e. Claims 2-10, 12-20) are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph at least via dependency to the respective independent claims.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and
the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
12. Claims 1-9, 11 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephene (WO 2019234478 A1) i.e. “Stephene”, in view of Moe et al. (US 20130210447 A1) i.e. “Moe”.
Regarding Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Stephene teaches: A method in a first network node (Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0054 […] multi-RAT scheduler 400 performs joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B in accordance with a carrier/spectrum sharing scheme that utilizes spatial multiplexing between different RATs (e.g., multi-RAT MU-MIMO, e.g., using a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing including UE 1 and UE 2 and/or multi-RAT SU-MIMO, e.g., using UE 3)[…] the carrier/spectrum sharing scheme utilizes SDMA carrier/spectrum sharing; FIG. 5 & ¶0056 […] operation of the multi-RAT base station 102 of FIG. 4 […] provides the channel information for the UEs 112 served by RAT A to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 (step 502) […] provides the channel information for the UEs 112 served by RAT B to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 (step 506); NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0054 i.e. multi-RAT scheduler 400 performs and per ¶0056 i.e. operation of the multi-RAT base station 102 of FIG. 4 including step 502 & step 506 reads on: A method in a first network node )
configured to share a spectrum between different radio access technologies, RATs (Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0054 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: ¶0054 i.e. performs joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B in accordance with i.e. a carrier/spectrum sharing scheme reads on: configured to share a spectrum , where i.e. joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B reads on: between different radio access technologies, RATs ),
the method comprising: determining a spectral efficiency of each of the RATs (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 […] including non-line-of-sight, for downlink (but similarly for uplink), the channel information for the channel between the radio unit(s) of the RAT A/B system 402/404 and a particular UE 112 includes a channel estimate vector for the channel. […] The multi-RAT scheduler 400 multiplies the transmit precoder utilized for the downlink from the RAT A system 402 to UE 1 with the channel estimate vector (vector because of multi-antennas) for UE 2 on RAT B and take the norm. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1. If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold, then UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 i.e. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference reads on: the method comprising: determining i.e. the magnitude of the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1. Furthermore i.e. If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: a spectral efficiency of each of the RATs in that i.e. RAT 1 UE interference power at UE2 is below a threshold and therefore a threshold is met to allow sharing of spectrum via SDMA (i.e. spectral efficiency condition determined) and UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B being i.e. selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing with respect to RAT A, and likewise similarly RAT A interference measured by UE2 RAT B is below threshold and therefore also i.e. spectral efficiency condition with respect to RAT B is determined)
based at least in part on (note: limitations subsequent to a recitation “at least in part on” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together) multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold, i.e. then UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing reads on: based at least in part on multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities i.e. the threshold is determined corresponding or based upon multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing capabilities to create a pairing when i.e. the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold )
of at least a second network node (note: limitations “multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities of at least a second network node” subsequent to a recitation “at least in part on” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together
- Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0060 See above; ¶0055 […] the multi-RAT scheduler 400 may alternatively be implemented on a separate node, e.g., a separate node that performs multi-RAT scheduling for multiple base stations 102. Still further, the RAT A system 402 and the RAT B system 404 may alternatively be implemented in separate base stations; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0061 i.e. the RAT A system 402 and the RAT B system 404 may alternatively be implemented in separate base stations reads on: of at least a second network node in conjunction with i.e. the multi-RAT scheduler 400 implemented on a separate node, e.g., a separate node that performs multi-RAT scheduling for multiple base stations 102.)
and wireless devices, WDs, using a corresponding radio access technology, RAT (note: limitations “and wireless devices, WD” subsequent to a recitation “at least in part on” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together -
Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0054 See above; ¶0055 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per FIG. 4 & ¶0054 i.e. performs joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B in accordance with a carrier/spectrum sharing scheme that utilizes spatial multiplexing between different RATs (e.g., multi-RAT MU-MIMO, e.g., using a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing i.e. including UE 1 and UE 2 reads on: and wireless devices, WD, (22) using a corresponding radio access technology, RAT as associated with RAT A and second node 402 or Second node 404 RAT B );
evaluating whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT meets one or more criteria of user throughput fairness and the spectral efficiency (Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0051 […] The carrier/spectrum sharing scheme disclosed herein utilizes multi-RAT MU-MIMO and/or multi-RAT SU-MIMO to enable carrier/spectrum sharing between two or more RATs by using spatial division multiplexing between the RATs on the same time-frequency resources […] scheduling) is jointly performed for the RATs or coordinated among the RATs to ensure that: ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources, are only allowed when the downlink channels on the different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal to allow for an overall increase in the system performance (throughput and/or latency and/or reliability) through good enough reception at the user terminals of the signals on the different RATs. […] being sufficiently orthogonal, simulations or historical observations can be used to learn that when the correlation coefficient between estimated channel vectors (antenna elements) is below a certain level, MU-MIMO increases performance (e.g., throughput, reliability, or the like) on average ; ¶0054 See above; ¶0055 See above; ¶0062 […] the channel information and, optionally, additional information (e.g., information regarding transmit or receiver precoders), the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function in doing radio resource allocation. The utility function may be, for example, cell throughput, reliability, latency, or the like, or any weighted combination thereof; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: As applied to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 or UE1 and Ue2 on a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing, per ¶0051 i.e. scheduling is jointly performed for the RATs or coordinated among the RATs to ensure that: ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources, i.e. are only allowed when the downlink channels on the different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal reads on: evaluating that different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal. Furthermore, per ¶0052 i.e. the different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal with respect to per ¶0052 i.e. Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources reads on: whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT with regards to i.e. transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency (SDMA). Furthermore, per ¶0052 scheduling being i.e. being sufficiently orthogonal, i.e. when the correlation coefficient between estimated channel vectors (antenna elements) is below a certain level, MU-MIMO increases performance on average reads on: meets one or more criteria and furthermore i.e. MU-MIMO increases performance (e.g., throughput reads on: of user throughput , where furthermore i.e. enable carrier/spectrum sharing between two or more RATs by using spatial division multiplexing between the RATs on the same time-frequency resources and per ¶0062 i.e. the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function i.e. for example, cell throughput, reliability, latency, or the like, or any weighted combination thereof reads on: fairness at least with respect to equal sharing of spectrum resources (SDMA) and maximizing cell throughput, reliability, latency. Furthermore i.e. MU-MIMO increases performance (e.g., throughput, reliability) on SDMA i.e. enabled by per ¶0059 i.e. the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold, leading to i.e. UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B being i.e. selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing reads on: the spectral efficiency as applied to the even spectral usage via SDMA i.e. between RATs where at least reliability or efficiency is increased);
and splitting, responsive to the one or more criteria the shared spectrum different RATs (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0054 See above; ¶0059 See above; ¶0068 […] FIGS. 4 and 5, the multi-RAT scheduler 400 is used to perform joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0059 If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold where per ¶0054 i.e. the carrier/spectrum sharing scheme utilizes SDMA carrier/spectrum sharing and per ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources reads on: and splitting utilizing SDMA. Furthermore the carrier/spectrum sharing being ¶0051 i.e. scheduling is jointly performed for the RATs or coordinated among the RATs to ensure that: ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources, i.e. are only allowed when the downlink channels on the different RATs are sufficiently orthogonal i.e. when the correlation coefficient between estimated channel vectors (antenna elements) is below a certain level, MU-MIMO increases performance on average reads on: responsive to the one or more criteria. Furthermore per ¶0065 i.e. a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 where per ¶0068 the multi-RAT scheduler 400 is used to perform joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B and per ¶0054 i.e. a carrier/spectrum sharing scheme that utilizes spatial multiplexing between different RATs (e.g., multi-RAT MU-MIMO, e.g., using a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing including UE 1 and UE 2 and ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources all read on: the shared spectrum among the RATs where UE 1 pertains to RAT A and UE2 pertains to RAT B)
based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency of each RAT (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 See above; ¶0065 […] scheduler 400 provides scheduling information to the RAT A system 402 (step 512) and to the RAT B system 404 (step 514) […] includes, for each identified multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing, information that indicates the UE 112 (e.g., UE 1) on RAT A that is included in the multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing and information that indicates a set of time-frequency resources scheduled for the UE 112 (e.g., UE 1) on RAT A that is included in the multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing ; ¶0068 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 5 Step 508 & ¶0059 If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold i.e. then reads on: based at least in part on If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold, then UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing. Furthermore per ¶0059 therefore i.e. interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: the determined spectral efficiency of each RAT in that the determined spectral efficiency i.e. RAT 1 UE interference power at UE2 is below a threshold and therefore a determined spectral efficiency with respect to RAT A, and likewise similarly RAT A interference measured by UE2 RAT B is below threshold and therefore also spectral efficiency with respect to RAT B, is a precondition to be met to allow a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing for SDMA sharing of spectrum).
While Stephene teaches: splitting, responsive to the one or more criteria the shared spectrum among the different RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency of each RAT, Stephene appears not to explicitly address splitting, responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum, and subsequently where the splitting is based at least in part on applying i.e. by recalculating a current spectrum allocation. Therefore the office action respectfully contends that:
Stephene does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (i.e. Note: See italicized portions): splitting, responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum different RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency by recalculating a current spectrum allocation of each RAT;
Furthermore, this office action respectfully further contends that while prior art Moe combined below teaches spectral efficiency of each of the RATs, but appears to lack additional defining features and specifics such as being based at least in part on multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO capabilities, i.e. the features and the specifics already taught by Stephene in combination, significantly i.e. prior art Moe however teaches claim elements noted above which are not explicitly taught by Stephene, via teachings of Moe presented below in combination for reasons noted further below, in that:
Moe teaches: determining a spectral efficiency of each of the RATs (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & ¶0022 […] a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 based on load in the different cells 13,15,17. Thus, if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 parts or all of a shared frequency band is allocated to the second cell 15. This allocation of the radio resource within the radio base station 12 leads to a more efficient use of resources within the radio communications network improving the performance of the active UE 10,14,16 in the radio communications network. A shared frequency band here means that the frequency band may be allocated to any of the supported radio access technologies [...] Heavy load may be defined as a load that exceeds a load threshold value of load, which load threshold value may be preset or dynamically, set according to statistics or in relation to maximum possible or available radio resources; ¶0026 […] radio base station 12 supports a frequency band that may be allocated to the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 […] Step 201. The radio base station 12 determines a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15. The load may here be defined as number of user equipments in an idle mode and/or an active mode, number of handovers, amount of data transmitted within a cell, indication of packet delay, length of buffer queue, level of transmission power, ratio of physical resource utilization […] load may also be defined as the amount of user equipment support a certain radio access technology. Step 202. The radio base station 12 allocates the radio resource to the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 based on the determined load; ¶0027 […] the load may change in the different cells 13, 15 and the radio base station 12 then adjusts the allocation of the radio resource corresponding to the changed load in the cell; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. per ¶0026 i.e. Step 201. The radio base station 12 determines a load reads on: determining a spectral efficiency which could be i.e. ratio of physical resource utilization or amount of data transmitted within a cell, indication of packet delay or the amount of user equipment support a certain radio access technology in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15. Furthermore, that per ¶0026 i.e. determines a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15 which correspond to i.e. the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 reads on: of each of the RATs )
based at least in part on at least a second network node (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG2 & FIG. 8 ¶0062 […] a controller unit 801 arranged to control a first RAT 1 Base Band unit 803. The first RAT 1 Base Band unit 803 supports communication over a frequency band of the first radio access technology […] control a second RAT 2 Base Band unit 804. The second RAT 2 Base Band unit 804 supports communication over a frequency band of the second radio access technology; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. Base Band unit 803 or Base Band unit 804 reads on: based at least in part on at least a second network node specific to each RAT)
and wireless devices, WDs, using a corresponding radio access technology, RAT (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & FIG. 8 ¶0026 See above; ¶0063 […] radio base station 12 determines load in the first cell 13 and second cell 15, for example, based on communication from a first user equipment 10 and second user equipment 14; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & FIG. 8 i.e. a first user equipment 10 and second user equipment 14 reads on: and wireless devices, WDs where Per FIG. 1, 2, 8 equipments 10 and 14 correspond to communication with per ¶0026 the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 reads on: using a corresponding radio access technology, RAT );
evaluating whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT meets one or more criteria of user throughput fairness and the spectral efficiency (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & ¶0022 See above; ¶0026 see above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0026 i.e. radio base station 12 determines reads on: evaluating a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15. Furthermore i.e. determines a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15 where per ¶0022 i.e. if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 parts reads on: whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT with respect to the load on the allocated spectrum for the respective cell. Furthermore per ¶0026 i.e. determines a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15, where per ¶0022 i.e. if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 parts where per ¶0022 i.e. Heavy load may be defined as a load that exceeds a load threshold value of load reads on: meets one or more criteria, and per ¶0026 i.e. The load may here be defined as i.e. amount of data transmitted within a cell reads on: of user throughput fairness with respect to number of user equipments in an active mode such as per ¶0063 radio base station 12 determines load in the first cell 13 and second cell 15, i.e. based on communication from a first user equipment 10 and second user equipment 14. Furthermore and per ¶0026 i.e. The load may here be defined as i.e. amount of data transmitted within a cell and i.e. loads as indication of packet delay reads on: and the spectral efficiency applied to allocated spectrum);
and splitting, responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum different RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency by recalculating a current spectrum allocation of each RAT (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & ¶0022 See above; ¶0026 see above […] Step 202. The radio base station 12 allocates the radio resource to the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 based on the determined load. The radio resource supports communication over the frequency band and may be defined as a radio frequency, a radio frequency band. The radio resource may also be defined as a radio equipment within the radio base station such as a base band unit supporting communication over a certain radio frequency or frequency band, a radio unit comprising an antenna or other radio equipment supporting communication over the frequency band. Thus, the radio base station 12 may allocate a radio frequency of the frequency band supporting communication over the frequency band.; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0022 i.e. a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 based on load in the different cells 13,15,17 and per ¶0026 step 202 i.e. The radio base station 12 allocates the radio resource to the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 reads on: and splitting the frequency band or spectrum. Furthermore, per ¶0026 i.e. Heavy load may be defined as a load that exceeds a load threshold value of load where i.e. if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 reads on: responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria associated with load a defined. Furthermore per ¶0022 i.e. a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 based on load in the different cells 13,15,17. Thus, if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 i.e. parts or all of a shared frequency band is allocated to the second cell 15 reads on: the shared spectrum i.e. are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 reads on: among the different RATs. Furthermore or per ¶0026 i.e. The radio base station 12 allocates based on the determined load or per ¶0022 i.e. a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 i.e. based on load in the different cells 13,15,17 reads on: based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency which as noted load may be defined as i.e. amount of data transmitted within a cell and i.e. loads as indication of packet delay or efficiency associated with the spectrum allocated. Furthermore per ¶0027 i.e. the load may change in the different cells 13, 15 and the radio base station 12 then adjusts the allocation of the radio resource reads on: by recalculating a current spectrum allocation corresponding to the changed load in the cells reads on: of each RAT where each cell corresponds to a RAT);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stephene with teachings of Moe since Stephene and Moe are from the same area of endeavor, and furthermore since Moe enables a more efficient use of resources within the radio communications network improving the performance of the active UE 10,14,16 in the radio communications network (Moe - ¶0022).
Regarding Claim 2. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The method of Claim 1,
furthermore Stephene teaches: wherein [[the]] determining [[of a]] the spectral efficiency includes collecting data from different network nodes operating according to the different RATs (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 & ¶0056 […] the RAT A system 402 obtains channel information (e.g., channel state information) for UEs 112, including UE 1 and UE 3, served by RAT A (step 500) and provides the channel information for the UEs 112 served by RAT A to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 (step 502) […] the RAT B system 404 obtains channel information (e.g., channel state information) for UEs 112, including UE 2 and UE 3, served by RAT B (step 504) and provides the channel information for the UEs 112 served by RAT B to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 (step 506); ¶0059 See claim 1; ¶0061 […] Any suitable channel information needed by or beneficial to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 may be provided in steps 502 and 506; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. per ¶0059 i.e. the channel information for the channel between the radio unit(s) of the RAT A/B system 402/404 and a particular UE 112 includes a channel estimate vector for the channel where Scheduler multiples the channel estimate vector and i.e. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference where based upon interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: wherein determining the spectral efficiency using the channel estimate vector. Furthermore i.e. where per ¶0056 i.e. FIG.5 i.e. provides the channel information for the UEs 112 served by RAT A to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 (step 502) and similarly provides channel information for the UEs 112 served by RAT B to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 (step 506) reads on: includes collecting data from different network nodes, and i.e. for the UEs 112 served by RAT A to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 & for the UEs 112 served by RAT B to the multi-RAT scheduler 400 reads on: operating according to the different RATs ).
Regarding Claim 3. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The method of Claim 1,
furthermore Stephene teaches: wherein [[the]] determining [[of a]] the spectral efficiency includes comparing [[a]] the current spectrum allocation to each RAT to achieve [[a]] user throughput fairness (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 & ¶0059 See claim 1 ; ¶0062 See Claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. per ¶0059 i.e. the channel information for the channel between the radio unit(s) of the RAT A/B system 402/404 and a particular UE 112 includes a channel estimate vector for the channel where Scheduler multiples the channel estimate vector and i.e. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference where based upon interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: wherein determining of the spectral efficiency , where per ¶0062 i.e. the channel information and, optionally, additional information (e.g., information regarding transmit or receiver precoders), the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function i.e. in doing radio resource allocation reads on: includes comparing the current spectrum allocation to each RAT for which the channel information such as the channel estimate vector are obtained. Furthermore i.e. the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function i.e. for example, cell throughput, reliability, latency, or the like, or any weighted combination thereof reads on: to achieve user throughput fairness );
furthermore Moe also teaches: wherein the determining [[of a]] the spectral efficiency includes comparing [[a]] the current spectrum allocation to each RAT to achieve [[a]] user throughput fairness (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & ¶0022 See claim 1 & ¶0026 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. per ¶0026 i.e. Step 201. The radio base station 12 determines a load reads on: wherein determining of the spectral efficiency which could be i.e. ratio of physical resource utilization or amount of data transmitted within a cell, indication of packet delay or the amount of user equipment support a certain radio access technology in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15. That per ¶0026 determines a load in the first cell 13 and/or the second cell 15 which correspond to i.e. the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 and per ¶0022 i.e. a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 based on reads on: includes comparing the current spectrum allocation based on load in the different cells 13,15,17 reads on: to each RAT. Thus, if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 parts or all of a shared frequency band is allocated to the second cell 15 reads on: to achieve user throughput fairness based on load comparison).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stephene in view of Moe further with the teachings of Moe, since Moe enables a more efficient use of resources within the radio communications network improving the performance of the active UE 10,14,16 in the radio communications network (Moe - ¶0022).
Regarding Claim 4. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The method of Claim 1,
furthermore Stephene teaches: wherein [[the]] determining [[of a]] the spectral efficiency includes constructing MU-MIMO groups for each RAT, of WDs that are spatially separated (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 & ¶0048 […] regard to multi-RAT MU-MIMO, the main mechanism is similar to the conventional MU-MIMO user pairing and layer assignment procedure, except that inter-RAT pairing is also considered/allowed. In some embodiments, scheduling (i.e., radio resource management) is jointly performed for all of the RATs so that appropriate channel information for UEs of all RATs is considered jointly to assess channel orthogonality required for selecting appropriate (multi-RAT) UE pairings. Note that, a “UE pairing” may include any number of two or more UEs. ; ¶0059 See claim 1 ; ¶0062 See claim 1 […] However, the multi-RAT scheduler 400 is not restricted to selecting MU-MIMO pairings within a single RAT. The multi-RAT scheduler 400 has the additional flexibility to consider multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairings across RATs; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. per ¶0059 i.e. the channel information for the channel between the radio unit(s) of the RAT A/B system 402/404 and a particular UE 112 includes a channel estimate vector for the channel where Scheduler multiples the channel estimate vector and i.e. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference where based upon interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: wherein determining the spectral efficiency, i.e. then UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing where per ¶0062 i.e. the multi-RAT scheduler 400 is not restricted to selecting MU-MIMO pairings within a single RAT but i.e. has the additional flexibility to consider multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairings across RATs reads on: includes constructing MU-MIMO groups for each RAT and per ¶0048 a “UE pairing” may include any number of two or more UEs. Furthermore per ¶0051 i.e. The carrier/spectrum sharing scheme disclosed herein utilizes multi-RAT MU-MIMO and/or multi-RAT SU-MIMO to enable carrier/spectrum sharing between two or more RATs by using spatial division multiplexing between the RATs reads on: of WDs that are spatially separated).
Regarding Claim 5. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The method of Claim 4,
furthermore Stephene teaches: wherein [[the]] determining [[of a]] the spectral efficiency includes determining a scheduling priority for each group ( Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 & ¶0048 See claim 4 […] scheduling or radio resource management is coordinated between the RATs such that appropriate multi-RAT UE pairings can be selected. The level of orthogonality between the UEs in a multi-RAT UE pairing needs to be sufficient to establish that adding an extra spatial multiplexing layer on a given RAT will result in throughput/latency improvements despite the presence of additional inter-layer (and inter-RAT) interference; per ¶0059 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. per ¶0059 i.e. the channel information for the channel between the radio unit(s) of the RAT A/B system 402/404 and a particular UE 112 includes a channel estimate vector for the channel where Scheduler multiples the channel estimate vector and i.e. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference where based upon interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: wherein determining the spectral efficiency, i.e. per ¶0048 scheduling or radio resource management is coordinated between the RATs such that i.e. appropriate multi-RAT UE pairings can be selected reads on: includes determining a scheduling priority , for i.e. multi-RAT UE pairings reads on: for each group ).
Regarding Claim 6. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The method of Claim 4,
furthermore Stephene teaches: wherein [[the]] determining [[of a]] the spectral efficiency includes determining a traffic load for each group (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 & ¶0059 See claim 1 & ¶0062 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. per ¶0059 i.e. the channel information for the channel between the radio unit(s) of the RAT A/B system 402/404 and a particular UE 112 includes a channel estimate vector for the channel where Scheduler multiples the channel estimate vector and i.e. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference where based upon interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: wherein determining the spectral efficiency. Per ¶0062 i.e. Using the channel information and, optionally, additional information (e.g., information regarding transmit or receiver precoders), the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function in doing radio resource allocation. i.e. The utility function may be, for example, cell throughput reads on: includes determining a traffic load, which per ¶0059 i.e. pertains to i.e. UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO pairing reads on: for each group ).
Regarding Claim 7. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The method of Claim 4,
furthermore Stephene teaches: wherein the spectrum splitting includes allocating the shared spectrum to each group until a traffic load for each group is served (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 & ¶0059 claim 1 & ¶0062 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. per ¶0059 i.e. If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold where per ¶0054 i.e. the carrier/spectrum sharing scheme utilizes SDMA carrier/spectrum sharing and per ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources reads on: and splitting utilizing SDMA reads on: wherein the spectrum splitting. Furthermore, Per ¶0062 i.e. Using the channel information and, optionally, additional information (e.g., information regarding transmit or receiver precoders), the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function i.e. in doing radio resource allocation reads on: includes allocating the shared spectrum to each group such as per ¶0059 UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO. Furthermore, i.e. The utility function may be, for example, cell throughput where per ¶0062 the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function reads on: until a traffic load for each group is served).
or (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together)
there is no longer available spectrum (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together).
Regarding Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The method of Claim 4,
furthermore Stephene teaches: wherein [[the]] determining [[of a]] the spectral efficiency includes determining a MU-MIMO based utility function for each RAT(Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 & ¶0059 See claim 1 & ¶0062 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. per ¶0065 i.e. the channel information for the channel between the radio unit(s) of the RAT A/B system 402/404 and a particular UE 112 includes a channel estimate vector for the channel where Scheduler multiples the channel estimate vector and i.e. The result will give information about the magnitude of the interference where based upon interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold reads on: wherein determining the spectral efficiency. Per ¶0062 i.e. Using the channel information and, optionally, additional information (e.g., information regarding transmit or receiver precoders), the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function reads on: determining a MU-MIMO based utility function such as per ¶0059 UE 1 on RAT A and UE 2 on RAT B are selected as a multi-RAT MU-MIMO reads on: for each RAT ),
a utility function for a RAT being based at (note: limitations subsequent to a recitation “on at least one of” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together) a number of MU-MIMO groups in the RAT (note: limitations subsequent to a recitation “on at least one of” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together), an average MU-MIMO group size(note: limitations subsequent to a recitation “on at least one of” are interpreted as presented in the alternative an not required together),
and a total traffic requested by WDs served by each RAT (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 & ¶0059 See claim 1 & ¶0062 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0062 i.e. Using the channel information and, optionally, additional information (e.g., information regarding transmit or receiver precoders), the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function i.e. for example, cell throughput reads on: and a total traffic requested by WDs served by each RAT as served by Base stations 402 pertaining RAT A and 404 pertaining RAT B).
Regarding Claim 9. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The method of Claim 8,
furthermore Stephene teaches: wherein the spectrum splitting includes comparing the MU-MIMO utility function for each RAT and allocating resources to each RAT based at least in part on the comparison (Stephene FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 & ¶0059 See claim 1 & ¶0062 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: ¶0059 i.e. If the interference at UE 2 caused by a simultaneous transmission for UE 1 is less than a predefined or preconfigured threshold where per ¶0054 i.e. the carrier/spectrum sharing scheme utilizes SDMA carrier/spectrum sharing and per ¶0052 Simultaneous downlink transmissions on different RATs, on the same time-frequency resources reads on: and splitting utilizing SDMA reads on: : wherein the spectrum splitting . Furthermore as applied to per ¶0054 the i.e. carrier/spectrum sharing scheme which i.e. utilizes SDMA carrier/spectrum sharing, per ¶0062 i.e. Using the channel information and, optionally, additional information (e.g., information regarding transmit or receiver precoders), the multi-RAT scheduler 400, e.g., tries to maximize a specific utility function i.e. for example, cell throughput reads on: includes comparing the MU-MIMO utility function for each RAT as served by Base stations 402 pertaining RAT A and 404 pertaining RAT B reads on: and allocating resources to each RAT based at least in part on the comparison which is implied as a result of i.e. tries to maximize a specific utility function across RATs ).
Stephene does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (i.e. Note: Stephene appears to imply - See italicized portions): allocating resources to each RAT based at least in part on the comparison;
While Stephene appears to imply allocating resources to each RAT is based at least in part on the comparison, Moe as taught below in combination teaches allocating resources to each RAT can be based at least in part on the comparison; i.e.,
furthermore Moe teaches: wherein the spectrum splitting includes comparing the utility function for each RAT and allocating resources to each RAT based at least in part on the comparison (Moe FIG. 1 & FIG. 2 & ¶0022 See claim 1 & ¶0026 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0026 i.e. The radio base station 12 allocates the radio resource to the first radio access technology of the first cell 13 or the second radio access technology of the second cell 15 reads on: wherein the spectrum splitting. Per ¶0022 i.e. a frequency band, supported by the radio base station 12, are allocated to the different cells 13,15,17 based on load reads on: includes comparing the utility function for each RAT in the different cells 13,15,17 reads on: to each RAT. Thus, if there is a heavy load in the second cell 15 parts or all of a shared frequency band is allocated to the second cell 15 reads on: and allocating resources to each RAT based at least in part on the comparison based on load comparison i.e. in the different cells 13,15,17 or between each RAT corresponding to each cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stephene in view of Moe further with the teachings of Moe, since Moe enables a more efficient use of resources within the radio communications network improving the performance of the active UE 10,14,16 in the radio communications network (Moe - ¶0022).
Regarding Claim 11. (Currently Amended) Stephene teaches: A first network node configured to share a spectrum between different radio access technologies, RATs (Stephene FIG. 4 & ¶0060 See claim 1; FIG. 5 & ¶0062 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0060 i.e. multi-RAT scheduler 400 performs and per ¶0062 i.e. operation of the multi-RAT base station 102 reads on: A first network node of FIG. 4 including step 502 & step 506, and per ¶0060 i.e. multi-RAT scheduler 400 performs joint scheduling for RAT A and RAT B in accordance with a carrier/spectrum sharing scheme reads on: configured to share a spectrum between different radio access technologies ),
the first network node comprising processing circuitry (Stephene FIG. 4, FIG. 5 FIG. 8 & ¶0086 […] radio access node 800 includes a control system 802 that includes one or more processors 804 (e.g., Central Processing Units (CPUs), Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), and/or the like), memory 806, and a network interface 808. The one or more processors 804 are also referred to herein as processing circuitry; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: as processing circuitry reads on: the first network node )
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 11 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 11. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
configured to: determine a spectral efficiency of each of the RATs based at least in part on multi-user multiple input multiple output, MU-MIMO, capabilities. of at least a second network node and wireless devices, WDs, using a corresponding radio access technology, RAT; evaluate whether a current spectrum allocation to each RAT meets one or more criteria of user throughput fairness and the spectral efficiency; and split, responsive to a violation of the one or more criteria, the shared spectrum todifferent RATs based at least in part on the determined spectral efficiency by recalculating the current spectrum allocation of each RAT (See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 11 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 11. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 12. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The first network node of Claim 11,
(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 12 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 12. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein the different RATs. (See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 12 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 12. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 13. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The first network node of Claim 11,
(See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 13 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 13. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein (See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 13 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 13. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 14. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The first network node of Claim 11,
(See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 14 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 14. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein (See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 14 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 14. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 15. (Currently Amended) The first network node of Claim 14,
(See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 15 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 15. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
(See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 15 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 15. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 16. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The first network node of Claim 14,
(See the rejection of Claim 6, Claim 16 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 6, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 6 applies similarly to Claim 16. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
(See the rejection of Claim 6, Claim 16 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 6, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 6 applies similarly to Claim 16. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 17. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The first network node of Claim 14,
(See the rejection of Claim 7, Claim 17 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 7, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 7 applies similarly to Claim 17. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein the spectrum splitting includes allocating the shared spectrum to each group until a traffic load for each group is served or there is no longer available spectrum (See the rejection of Claim 7, Claim 17 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 7, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 7 applies similarly to Claim 17. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 18. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The first network node of Claim 14,
(See the rejection of Claim 8, Claim 18 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 8, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 8 applies similarly to Claim 18. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein each RAT being based (See the rejection of Claim 8, Claim 18 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 8, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 8 applies similarly to Claim 18. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 19. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The first network node of Claim 18,
(See the rejection of Claim 9, Claim 19 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 9, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 9 applies similarly to Claim 19. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein the spectrum splitting includes comparing the MU-MIMO based utility function for each RAT and allocating resources to each RAT based at least in part on the comparison (See the rejection of Claim 9, Claim 19 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 9, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 9 applies similarly to Claim 19. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
13. Claims 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephene in view of Moe, further in view of GAO et al. (US 20220104027 A1) i.e. “GAO”.
Regarding Claim 10. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The method of Claim 9,
Stephene in view of Moe does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (Note: see italicized portions): wherein [[the]] allocating [[of]] resources is based at least in part on a previous allocation of resources to [[the]] each RAT;
Gao teaches: wherein [[the]] allocating [[of]] resources to [[a]] each RAT is based at least in part on a previous allocation of resources to [[the]] each RAT (Gao - ¶0049 […] predict the new traffic data amount in the next period according to the history traffic data of at least one period of the first RAT system and the second RAT system and allocate resources based on the predicted traffic amount. In some embodiments, the shared spectrum resources of the first RAT system and the second RAT system are determined according to the new traffic amount in the next period predicted based on history traffic data, instead of determining the shared spectrum resources based on the current traffic amount.; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per 0049 i.e. predict the new traffic data amount in the next period according to the history traffic data of at least one period of the first RAT system and the second RAT system and allocate resources reads on: wherein allocating resources to each RAT , where i.e. the shared spectrum resources of the first RAT system and the second RAT system are determined according to the new traffic amount in the next period predicted i.e. based on history traffic data reads on: is based at least in part on a previous allocation of resources, where i.e. the shared spectrum resources of i.e. the first RAT system and the second RAT system reads on: to each RAT for which predicted is i.e. the new traffic data amount in the next period according to the history traffic data of at least one period of the i.e. same i.e. first RAT system and the second RAT system ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stephene in view of Moe further with the teachings of GAO, since GAO enables allocation of spectrum resources in a way that is more in line with features of real-time changes in traffic amount, and a determined shared spectrum resources can more closely match the real-time changing traffic amount, make the resource allocation more reasonable, and better meet the actual traffic needs and improve the resource utilization (Moe - ¶0049).
Regarding Claim 20. (Currently Amended) Stephene in view of Moe teaches: The first network node of Claim 19(See the rejection of Claim 10, Claim 20 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 10, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 10 applies similarly to Claim 20. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate),
wherein [[the]] allocating [[of]] resources to [[a]] each RAT is based at least in part on a previous allocation of resources to [[the]] each RAT (See the rejection of Claim 10, Claim 20 recites similar and parallel features associated with A first network node associated with a method of Claim 10, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 10 applies similarly to Claim 20. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALICK A SOHRAB whose telephone number is (571)272-4347. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fri 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on (571) 272-7884. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2414
02/14/2026
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414