DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sang et al. (US 20200404620 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 20230403747 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sang et al. teaches a method in a network node for arbitration of radio resources to share the radio resources between different radio access technologies, RATs (Paragraph 454, 275, 295, These passages disclose a network-side node implementing and executing a policy across different RATs, thereby teaching a network node performing arbitration between RAT-related resources), the method comprising: determining a demand for resources for a first RAT and for a second RAT (Paragraph 270, 275, These passages teach evaluating load status and quality of different frequency sets associated with different RATs, which corresponds to determining resource demand for each RAT in order to prioritize and allocate resources accordingly).
Sang et al. does not explicitly teach performing one of:
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to n between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, n being an integer greater than 1, and determining a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1, a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources in one subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources followed by a subframe for which the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources, followed by 2n-1 consecutive subframes for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources;
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of n to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, then determining a subframe pattern of n: 1, a subframe pattern of n: 1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in n consecutive subframes, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources;
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, then determining a subframe pattern of 1:1, a subframe pattern of 1:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in a subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources.
However, Sun et al. teaches performing one of:
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to n between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, n being an integer greater than 1, and determining a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1, a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources in one subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources followed by a subframe for which the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources, followed by 2n-1 consecutive subframes for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources;
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of n to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, then determining a subframe pattern of n: 1, a subframe pattern of n: 1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in n consecutive subframes, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources; and
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand (Paragraph 220, 221, These passages explicitly disclose configuring a 1:1 ratio between two resource domains, establishing a preferred equal split of time-domain radio resources), then determining a subframe pattern of 1:1, a subframe pattern of 1:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in a subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources (Paragraph 218, 220, These passages disclose alternating subframe configurations (e.g., D/U patterns) defined by an uplink-downlink configuration table implementing a 1:1 proportional pattern in which one transmission domain has priority in one subframe followed by the other in the next, thereby defining a concrete alternating subframe pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, then determining a subframe pattern of 1:1, a subframe pattern of 1:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in a subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources as taught by Sun et al. in the system of Sang et al., so that it would enable predictable and balanced time-domain arbitration of radio resources between different RATs under high-demand conditions while improving fairness, resource utilization efficiency, and overall system performance.
Regarding claim 2, Sang et al. teaches the first RAT is New Radio, NR, and the second RAT is Long Term Evolution, LTE (Paragraph 160, 175, 223, 240, 256, 260, 272, 325, 456, These passages expressly identify NR (5G, gNB, TS 38.304) and LTE (E-UTRAN, eNB, TS 36.304) as distinct radio access technologies and describe scenarios involving both NR and LTE (including inter-RAT LTE+NR operation), thereby teaching that one RAT is NR and another RAT is LTE).
Regarding claim 3, Sang et al. teaches resource blocks of a subframe are assigned to communications of the higher priority RAT before remaining resource blocks of the subframe are assigned to communications of the lower priority RAT (Paragraph 267, 271, 273, 291, 325, These passages collectively disclose an absolute priority hierarchy between two RATs (e.g., LF and HF), where communications on the higher priority RAT are performed first and the lower priority RAT is only used afterward if needed, which corresponds to assigning communication resources within a subframe to the higher priority RAT before allocating remaining resources to the lower priority RAT).
Regarding claim 4, Sang et al. teaches a subframe pattern repeats (Paragraph 216–218, 224, These passages describe a defined subframe pattern associated with paging occasions within a DRX cycle that is mathematically parameterized and repeatedly applied each DRX cycle).
Regarding claim 5, Sang et al. teaches of a subframe patterns can change dynamically (Paragraph 213, 224, 227, 275, These passages collectively teach that paging time slots corresponding to subframes may be configured as contiguous or non-contiguous, may use different beam sets, and may be redefined or adjusted through configurable PF/PO structures and dynamically adjusted policies).
Regarding claim 6, Sang et al. teaches the demand for resources for the first RAT is estimated for each of a plurality of first traffic priority groups and the demand for resources for the second RAT is estimated for each of a plurality of second traffic priority groups (Paragraph 260, 262, 267, 270, 275, These passages collectively teach evaluating load, quality, and other performance-related metrics across multiple prioritized sets associated with different RATs and dynamically assigning hierarchical priorities among those sets, thereby estimating resource demand for each RAT across multiple priority groupings to control resource allocation behavior).
Regarding claim 7, Sang et al. teaches a subframe pattern is performed separately for downlink transmissions and uplink transmissions (Paragraph 165, 213, 216, 252, 301, 318, These passages describe defined subframe-based paging frame/paging occasion structures for downlink transmissions (e.g., PF/PO subframe patterns for DL paging) and distinct uplink transmission procedures (e.g., RACH and paging response transmissions), thereby evidencing that transmission timing structures are applied separately for downlink and uplink transmissions).
Regarding claim 9, Sang et al. teaches determining a subframe pattern for uplink transmissions followed by determining a subframe pattern for downlink transmissions (Paragraph 216, 301, 305, 318, 347, These passages collectively disclose determining a defined subframe pattern (PF/PO structure) for uplink paging or response transmissions and, pursuant to a defined ordered policy, subsequently determining and utilizing corresponding downlink paging subframe patterns, thereby teaching sequential determination of uplink and then downlink transmission patterns).
Regarding claim 11, Sang et al. teaches a network node configured for arbitration of radio resources to share the radio resources between different radio access technologies, RATs (Paragraph 454, 275, 295, These passages disclose a network-side node implementing and executing a policy across different RATs, thereby teaching a network node performing arbitration between RAT-related resources), the network node comprising processing circuitry configured to:
determine a demand for resources for a first RAT and for a second RAT (Paragraph 270, 275, These passages teach evaluating load status and quality of different frequency sets associated with different RATs, which corresponds to determining resource demand for each RAT in order to prioritize and allocate resources accordingly).
Sang et al. does not explicitly teach perform one of:
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to n between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, n being an integer greater than 1, and determining a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1, a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources in one subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources, followed by a subframe for which the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources, followed by 2n-1 consecutive subframes for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources;
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of n to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, then determining a subframe pattern of n:1, a subframe pattern of n:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in n consecutive subframes, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources; and
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, then determining a subframe pattern of 1:1, a subframe pattern of 1:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in a subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources.
However, Sun et al. teaches perform one of:
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to n between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, n being an integer greater than 1, and determining a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1, a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources in one subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources followed by a subframe for which the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources, followed by 2n-1 consecutive subframes for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources;
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of n to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, then determining a subframe pattern of n: 1, a subframe pattern of n: 1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in n consecutive subframes, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources; and
assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand (Paragraph 220, 221, These passages explicitly disclose configuring a 1:1 ratio between two resource domains, establishing a preferred equal split of time-domain radio resources), then determining a subframe pattern of 1:1, a subframe pattern of 1:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in a subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources (Paragraph 218, 220, These passages disclose alternating subframe configurations (e.g., D/U patterns) defined by an uplink-downlink configuration table implementing a 1:1 proportional pattern in which one transmission domain has priority in one subframe followed by the other in the next, thereby defining a concrete alternating subframe pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide assuming a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT when both RATs have enough demand, then determining a subframe pattern of 1:1, a subframe pattern of 1:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in a subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources as taught by Sun et al. in the system of Sang et al., so that it would enable predictable and balanced time-domain arbitration of radio resources between different RATs under high-demand conditions while improving fairness, resource utilization efficiency, and overall system performance.
Regarding claim 12, Sang et al. teaches the first RAT is New Radio, NR, and the second RAT is Long Term Evolution, LTE (Paragraph 160, 175, 223, 240, 256, 260, 272, 325, 456, These passages expressly identify NR (5G, gNB, TS 38.304) and LTE (E-UTRAN, eNB, TS 36.304) as distinct radio access technologies and describe scenarios involving both NR and LTE (including inter-RAT LTE+NR operation), thereby teaching that one RAT is NR and another RAT is LTE).
Regarding claim 13, Sang et al. teaches resource blocks of a subframe are assigned to communications of the higher priority RAT before remaining resource blocks of the subframe are assigned to communications of the lower priority RAT (Paragraph 267, 271, 273, 291, 325, These passages collectively disclose an absolute priority hierarchy between two RATs (e.g., LF and HF), where communications on the higher priority RAT are performed first and the lower priority RAT is only used afterward if needed, which corresponds to assigning communication resources within a subframe to the higher priority RAT before allocating remaining resources to the lower priority RAT).
Regarding claim 14, Sang et al. teaches a subframe pattern repeats (Paragraph 216–218, 224, These passages describe a defined subframe pattern associated with paging occasions within a DRX cycle that is mathematically parameterized and repeatedly applied each DRX cycle).
Regarding claim 15, Sang et al. teaches of a subframe patterns can change dynamically (Paragraph 213, 224, 227, 275, These passages collectively teach that paging time slots corresponding to subframes may be configured as contiguous or non-contiguous, may use different beam sets, and may be redefined or adjusted through configurable PF/PO structures and dynamically adjusted policies).
Regarding claim 16, Sang et al. teaches the demand for resources for the first RAT is estimated for each of a plurality of first traffic priority groups and the demand for resources for the second RAT is estimated for each of a plurality of second traffic priority groups (Paragraph 260, 262, 267, 270, 275, These passages collectively teach evaluating load, quality, and other performance-related metrics across multiple prioritized sets associated with different RATs and dynamically assigning hierarchical priorities among those sets, thereby estimating resource demand for each RAT across multiple priority groupings to control resource allocation behavior).
Regarding claim 17, Sang et al. teaches a subframe pattern is performed separately for downlink transmissions and uplink transmissions (Paragraph 165, 213, 216, 252, 301, 318, These passages describe defined subframe-based paging frame/paging occasion structures for downlink transmissions (e.g., PF/PO subframe patterns for DL paging) and distinct uplink transmission procedures (e.g., RACH and paging response transmissions), thereby evidencing that transmission timing structures are applied separately for downlink and uplink transmissions).
Regarding claim 19, Sang et al. teaches determine a subframe pattern for uplink transmissions followed by determining a subframe pattern for downlink transmissions (Paragraph 216, 301, 305, 318, 347, These passages collectively disclose determining a defined subframe pattern (PF/PO structure) for uplink paging or response transmissions and, pursuant to a defined ordered policy, subsequently determining and utilizing corresponding downlink paging subframe patterns, thereby teaching sequential determination of uplink and then downlink transmission patterns).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 18, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following claim 1 drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application (the same amendments should be made to claim 11 as well), is presented to applicant for consideration:
1. (Currently Amended) A method in a network node for arbitration of radio resources to share the radio resources between different radio access technologies, RATs, the method comprising:
determining a demand for resources for a first RAT and for a second RAT; and
determining a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to n between the first RAT and the second RAT [[when]] based on both RATs [[have]] having enough demand, n being an integer greater than 1, and determining a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1, a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources in one subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources, followed by a subframe for which the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources, followed by 2n-1 consecutive subframes for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources;
determining a preferred resource split ratio of n to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT [[when]] based on both RATs [[have]] having enough demand, in response to determining a subframe pattern of n:1, a subframe pattern of n:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in n consecutive subframes, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources; and
determining a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT [[when]] based on both RATs [[have]] having enough demand, in response to determining a subframe pattern of 1:1, a subframe pattern of 1:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in a subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources;
wherein a time between a subframe pattern for uplink transmissions and a subframe pattern for downlink transmissions is based at least in part on at least one of:
a delay between resource arbitration and downlink or uplink transmission scheduling;
a delay between scheduling and transmission of a downlink assignment or uplink grant on a physical downlink control channel, PDCCH;
a delay between transmission of a downlink assignment and a corresponding physical downlink shared channel, PDSCH transmission;
a delay between transmission of an uplink grant and a corresponding physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH, transmission; and
a time when uplink radio resources are arbitrated when multiple k2 values are supported.
Another suitable option would be:
1. (Currently Amended) A method in a network node for arbitration of radio resources to share the radio resources between different radio access technologies, RATs, the method comprising:
determining a demand for resources for a first RAT and for a second RAT; and
determining a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to n between the first RAT and the second RAT [[when]] based on both RATs [[have]] having enough demand, n being an integer greater than 1, and determining a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1, a subframe pattern of 1:1:1:2n-1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources in one subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources, followed by a subframe for which the first RAT has higher priority than the second RAT to obtain radio resources, followed by 2n-1 consecutive subframes for which the second RAT has higher priority than the first RAT to obtain radio resources;
determining a preferred resource split ratio of n to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT [[when]] based on both RATs [[have]] having enough demand, in response to determining a subframe pattern of n:1, a subframe pattern of n:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in n consecutive subframes, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources; and
determining a preferred resource split ratio of 1 to 1 between the first RAT and the second RAT [[when]] based on both RATs [[have]] having enough demand, in response to determining a subframe pattern of 1:1, a subframe pattern of 1:1 meaning that the first RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources in a subframe, followed by a subframe for which the second RAT has higher priority to obtain radio resources;
wherein a first number of time slots between a time of a downlink assignment for a downlink transmission and a time of the downlink transmission is zero and a second number of time slots between a time of an uplink assignment for an uplink transmission and a time of the uplink transmission is one of 2 and 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Awadin et al. (US-20230140213-A1)
Li et al. (US-20230217432-A1)
Zhang et al. (US-20240106609-A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/IQBAL ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464