Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of Patent Application 18429983 on 2/1/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 11 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 18 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 11, and 18 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to resource allocation. Specifically, the claims recite identify bearers which use at least one of a plurality of networks and to which frequency resources shared between the plurality of networks should be allocated, determine a network to allocate the frequency resources in a next unit time among the plurality of networks, based on the identified bearers, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as communication circuit, memory, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of allocate at least some of the frequency resources to at least some of the identified bearers, based on the determined network. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a non-transitory computer readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of resource allocation. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of allocate at least some of the frequency resources to at least some of the identified bearers, based on the determined network. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of resource allocation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, 19-20 further describe the abstract idea of resource allocation. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnott (U.S Patent App Pub 20150351118).
Regarding claim 1,
Arnott teaches the network device comprising: a communication circuit; memory; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the communication circuit and the memory, wherein the memory store one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the network device to: (See paragraphs 72, 77, Arnott)
identify bearers which use at least one of a plurality of networks and to which frequency resources shared between the plurality of networks should be allocated, (See paragraphs 94-96, Arnott teaches bearers belong to different operators/networks)
determine a network to allocate the frequency resources in a next unit time among the plurality of networks, based on the identified bearers, and (See paragraphs 96-97, 108, 109, Arnott teaches slices, i.e. resources, are allocated to a network of a certain operator. This is done for each subframe, i.e. in a next unit time)
allocate at least some of the frequency resources to at least some of the identified bearers, based on the determined network. (See paragraphs 97, 108, 109, Arnott)
Regarding claim 2,
Arnott teaches the network device of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to determine the network in consideration of a history of networks to which resources have been allocated before the next unit time and a distribution ratio between the plurality of networks.(See paragraphs 19, 24, 91, Arnott)
Regarding claim 3,
Arnott teaches the network device of claim 2, wherein the history of networks to which resources have been allocated before the next unit time comprises at least some of a number of resource blocks (RBs) allocated to each of the plurality of networks, a number of terminals, a number of bearers, and an accumulated value thereof. (See paragraphs 19, 24, 91, Arnott)
Regarding claim 4,
Arnott teaches the network device of claim 2, wherein the distribution ratio between the plurality of networks is determined based on at least some of a number of terminals connected to each of the plurality of networks in the next unit time, a number of bearers, and a buffer size. (See paragraphs 19, 24, 91-92, Arnott)
Regarding claim 5,
Arnott teaches the network device of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to allocate at least some of the frequency resources to bearers having a priority higher than a threshold value among bearers which are not supported by the determined network. (See table 1 and paragraphs 107-108, Arnott)
Regarding claim 6,
Arnott teaches the network device of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to calculate resources required for scheduling the bearers. (See paragraphs 79, 91-92, Arnott)
Regarding claim 7,
Arnott teaches the network device of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to determine a ratio of resources allocated for each network. (See paragraphs12, 13, 91-92, Arnott)
Regarding claim 8,
Arnott teaches the network device of claim 7, wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to allocate at least some of the frequency resources to a bearer having a high priority among the identified bearers. (See paragraphs 11, 46, 72, Arnott)
Regarding claim 9,
Arnott teaches the network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to allocate at least some of the frequency resources to bearers having an equal priority among the identified bearers, based on a preconfigured parameter, fairness metric, or a combination thereof. (See paragraphs 11, 445-46, 72, claim 1, Arnott)
Claims 11-17 list all the same elements of claims 1-7, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-7 applies equally as well to claims 11-17.
Claims 18-20 list all the same elements of claims 1-3, but in medium form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-3 applies equally as well to claims 18-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnott (U.S Patent App Pub 20150351118 in view of Chen (U.S Patent Pub 11412525).
Regarding claim 10,
Arnott teaches the network device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of networks comprises a long term evolution (LTE) network. (See paragraphs 0070, Arnott)
Arnott does not explicitly teach but Chen teaches a long term evolution (LTE) network and a new radio (NR) network. (See column 3 line 49 – column 4 line 23,mChen)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Chen with Arnott because both deal with multiplexing. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Chen into Arnott is that Chen enables supporting service performance for bearer traffic associated with different non-GBR QCIs to be differentiated and allowing wireless service providers to market different mobility plans by mapping different traffic onto different quality-of-service (QoS) class identifier (QCI) 5QIs, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See column 1, Chen)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Di Girolamo, U.S. Patent 936829, teaches systems and methods for using a communication system in a spectrum are provided. For example, a random access or RACH procedure may be performed where the random access or RACH procedure may be configured to reduce secondary interference and/or to be used in a pixel-based environment. The random access or RACH procedure may include selecting a RACH preamble; sending a RACH preamble and/or format information; determining a transmission power of the RACH preamble and/or the format information; determining a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) and preamble ID associated with the RACH preamble; and/or selecting a physical RACH (PRACH).
2. Wijting, U.S. Patent App 8867379, teaches various example embodiments are disclosed. According to one example embodiment, a method may include receiving, by a first wireless node in a first wireless network, a request from a second wireless node in a second wireless network to borrow spectral resources from the first wireless network. The method may further include determining a cost of granting the request, the cost being based at least in part on a cost to a lending cell within the first wireless network from which the spectral resources will be borrowed and a cost to neighboring cells of the lending cell. The method may further include lending the spectral resources to the second wireless node based at least in part on the determined cost of granting the request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John FOLLANSBEE can be reached on (571)272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444