DETAILED ACTION The following communication is in response to the application filed on October 13, 2023. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements submitted on October 13, 2023 and July 25, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,800,367 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of each other . USPN 11,800,367 discloses: regarding claim 1 of the current application, a method comprising: receiving, at a network device of a network, one or more policies associated with the network; determining, based on the one or more policies, one or more resource requirements of one or more user equipments (UEs) managed by the network; providing the one or more policies and the one or more resource requirements to a system configured to control access to the network; and receiving, from the system, one or more parameters for allocating resources for communication with the one or more UEs (see claim 1 of USPN 11,800,367 ); regarding claim 2 of the current application, determining one or more inter-access point (AP) coordination capabilities for coordinating with one or more neighboring networks; and providing the one or more inter-AP coordination capabilities to the system (see claim 2 of USPN 11,800,367 ); regarding claim 3 of the current application, receiving a time interval for a seamless transition from a current channel to a new channel for the network; and receiving one or more time instances associated with the time interval (see claim 3 of USPN 11,800,367 ); regarding claim 4 of the current application, determining one or more physical cell identifiers (PCIs) of one or more cells associated with the network and one or more neighboring networks; and providing the one or more PCIs to the system (see claim 4 of USPN 11,800,367 ); regarding claim 5 of the current application , wherein the one or more parameters comprising at least one of a frequency range in one or more channels or a maximum transmit Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP); and further comprising: determining resources for the one or more UEs based on the one or more parameters (see claim 5 of USPN 11,800,367 ); regarding claim 6 of the current application, wherein the one or more policies are received from at least one of a Digital Network Architecture Center (DNA-C) or a network device comprising a network controller (see claim 6 of USPN 11,800,367 ); regarding claim 7 of the current application, wherein the one or more policies comprise at least one of a priority, a pre-emption capability index, and a pre-emption vulnerability index (see claim 1 of USPN 11,800,367 ); regarding claim 8 of the current application, a network device comprising: one or more processors; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive one or more policies associated with a network; determine, based on the one or more policies, one or more resource requirements of one or more user equipments (UEs) managed by the network; provide the one or more policies and the one or more resource requirements to a system configured to control access to the network; and receive, from the system, one or more parameters for allocating resources for communication with the one or more UEs (see claim 7 of USPN 11,800,367 ); regarding claim 9 of the current application, wherein the one or more policies comprise at least one of a priority, a pre-emption capability index, and a pre-emption vulnerability index (see claim 7 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 10 of the current application, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine one or more inter-access point (AP) coordination capabilities for coordinating with one or more neighboring networks; and provide the one or more inter-AP coordination capabilities to the system (see claim 8 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 11 of the current application, where the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a time interval for a seamless transition from a current channel to a new channel for the network; and receive one or more time instances associated with the time interval (see claim 9 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 12 of the current application, the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine one or more physical cell identifiers (PCIs) of one or more cells associated with the network and one or more neighboring networks; and provide the one or more PCIs to the SAS (see clam 10 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 13 of the current application, wherein the one or more parameters comprising at least one of a frequency range in one or more channels or a maximum transmit Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP); and the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine resources for the one or more UEs based on the one or more parameters (see claim 11 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 14 of the current application, wherein the one or more policies are received from at least one of a Digital Network Architecture Center (DNA-C) or a network controller (see claim 12 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 15 of the current application, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, at a network device, one or more policies associated with a network; determine, based on the one or more policies, one or more resource requirements of one or more user equipments (UEs) managed by the network; provide the one or more policies and the one or more resource requirements to a system; and receive, from the system, one or more parameters for allocating resources for communication with the one or more UEs (see claim 13 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 16 of the current application, further comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:determine one or more inter-access point (AP) coordination capabilities for coordinating with one or more neighboring networks; and provide the one or more inter-AP coordination capabilities to the system (see claim 14 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 17 of the current application, further comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a time interval for a seamless transition from a current channel to a new channel for the network; and receive one or more time instances associated with the time interval (see claim 15 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 18 of the current application, further comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine one or more physical cell identifiers (PCIs) of one or more cells associated with the network and one or more neighboring networks; and provide the one or more PCIs to the system (see claim 16 of USPN 11,800,367); regarding claim 19 of the current application, wherein the one or more parameters comprising at least one of a frequency range in one or more channels or a maximum transmit Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP); and further comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine resources for the one or more UEs based on the one or more parameters (see claim 17 of USPN 11,800,367); and regarding claim 20 of the current application, wherein the one or more policies comprise at least one of a priority, a pre-emption capability index, and a pre-emption vulnerability index, and wherein the one or more policies are received from at least one of a Digital Network Architecture Center (DNA-C) or a network controller (see claims 13 and 18 of USPN 11,800,367). In removing the additional limitation(s), the scope of the claim(s) is merely broadened by eliminating elements and their functions. It has been held that omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu , 168 USPQ 365 (Bd. App. 1969) (omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to not recite the additional limitation(s). The motivation for doing so would be to obtain a well-rounded intellectual protection of the claimed invention. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 2, 5 -10, 1 3 -16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0211889 (hereinafter “ Buddhikot ”) . Buddhikot discloses or suggest: regarding claim s 1 , 8, and 15 , a method and a system comprising: one or more processors (see at least paragraph 55); and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (see at least paragraphs 55 and 56) containing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receiv e , at a network device of a network, one or more policies associated with the network (see at least paragraphs 40, 41, 50, 51, and 52, the domain proxy accesses a policy from a database, where the database is implemented external to the domain proxy and the domain proxy accesses the database over an interface, where the domain proxy receives a request for allocation of a portion of a frequency band, where the request includes information indicating a preferred frequency, a preferred bandwidth, a time interval for usage of the allocated frequency, and the like ) ; determin e , based on the one or more policies, one or more resource requirements of one or more user equipments (UEs) managed by the network (see at least paragraphs 50 and 54, the domain proxy receives a request for allocation of a portion of a frequency band, where the request includes information indicating a preferred frequency, a preferred bandwidth, a time interval for usage of the allocated frequency, and the like, and the domain proxy aggregates the permitted request with permitted requests from other CBSDs ) ; provid e the one or more policies and the one or more resource requirements to a system configured to control access to the network (see at least paragraph 54, the domain proxy aggregates the permitted requests from a plurality of CBSDs and provides the aggregated request to the SAS) ; and receiv e , from the system, one or more parameters for allocating resources for communication with the one or more UEs (see at least paragraph 54, the domain proxy subsequently receives one or more message from the SAS including information indicating the allocated portions of the frequency band for the requesting CBSDs, where the requesting CBSDs begin communication on the basis of the received information) ; regarding claim s 2 , 10, and 16 , determining one or more inter-access point (AP) coordination capabilities for coordinating with one or more neighboring networks (see at least paragraphs 40, 41, 51, and 52, the policy includes information that is used to determine whether the requesting CBSD is permitted to request allocation resources from the SAS, where the policy includes information indicating a group that includes the requesting CBSD, whether the CBSD or group is active, inactive, or blocked, whether the CBSD is authorized to request resources from the SAS, time intervals in which the CBSD or group is active, and the like) ; and providing the one or more inter-AP coordination capabilities to the system (see at least paragraphs 50 and 54, the domain proxy receives a request for allocation of a portion of a frequency band, where the request includes information indicating a preferred frequency, a preferred bandwidth, a time interval for usage of the allocated frequency, and the like, and the domain proxy aggregates the permitted request with permitted requests from other CBSDs ) ; regarding claims 5, 13, and 19 , the one or more parameters comprising at least one of a frequency range in one or more channels or a maximum transmit Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) (see at least paragraph 54, the domain proxy subsequently receives one or more messages from the SAS including information indicating the allocated portions of the frequency band for the requesting CBSDs); and further comprising: determine resources for the one or more CBRS UEs based on the one or more parameters (see at least paragraph 54, the domain proxy subsequently receives one or more messages from the SAS including information indicating the allocated portions of the frequency band for the requesting CBSDs); and regarding claims 6, 7, 9, 14, and 20 , the one or more policies are received from at least one of a Digital Network Architecture Center (DNA-C) or a network device comprising a network controller (see at least paragraphs 40, 41, 50, 51, and 52, the domain proxy accesses a policy from a database, where the database is implemented external to the domain proxy and the domain proxy accesses the database over an interface), wherein the one or more policies comprise at least one of a priority, a pre-emption capability index, and a pre-emption vulnerability index (see at least paragraphs 40, 41, 51, and 52, the policy includes information that is used to determine whether the requesting CBSD is permitted to request allocation resources from the SAS, where the policy includes information indicating a group that includes the requesting CBSD, whether the CBSD or group is active, inactive, or blocked, whether the CBSD is authorized to request resources from the SAS, time intervals in which the CBSD or group is active, and the like; furthermore, the policy for the CBSD indicates whether the CBSD is activated and authorized to request access or not, which corresponds to a priority to request access). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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. Claim s 3, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buddhikot in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0275355 (hereinafter “Dhillon”). Regarding claims 3, 11, and 17 , Buddhikot discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention as addressed above except receiving a time interval for a seamless transition from a current channel to a new channel for the network; and receiving one or more time instances associated with the time interval. Dhillon, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests receiving a time interval for a seamless transition from a current channel to a new channel for the network; and receiving one or more time instances associated with the time interval (see at least Fig. 7, Fig. 8, and paragraphs 124, 125, and 133-136, the wireless base station (such as a CBSD) receives allocation of wireless channels from a CBRS wireless spectrum from the SAS, where wireless channels #1, #11, and #12 are available between time T1 and time T2 and then another wireless channel #14 is available for shared use between time T2 and time T4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Dhillon in to the invention of Buddhikot in order to optimize the usage the CBRS wireless spectrum. Claim s 4, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buddhikot in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0352505 (hereinafter “ Sevindik ”) . Regarding claims 4, 12, and 18 , Buddhikot discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention as addressed above except determining one or more physical cell identifiers (PCIs) of one or more cells associated with the network and one or more neighboring networks and providing the one or more PCIs to the system. Sevindik , from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests determining one or more physical cell identifiers (PCIs) of one or more cells associated with the network and one or more neighboring networks and providing the one or more PCIs to the system (see at least paragraphs 40-42, determining a number of PCIs that the connected dual SIM device detects and reporting the number of detected PCIs to the SAS via controller and/or in an implementation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Sevindik in to the invention of Buddhikot in order to allow the SAS to determine an inter-cluster interference and intra-cluster interference using the reported PCIs. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Litjens et al. (US 2022/0303782) – enhanced network availability for private enterprise networks in shared spectrum systems. Badic et al. (US 2019/0222339) – SAS-controlled interference management between CBSDs. Hannan (US 2019/0174359) – frequency allocation in a shared access system including an interference management policy governing how CBSDs are configured and their transmissions are coordinated to reduce interference amongst CBSDs. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1424 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Hadi Armouche can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3618 . 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. /PAO SINKANTARAKORN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 03/25/2026