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 .
The amendment filed on 04/10/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-13 and 16-21 are pending of which claims 1, and 12 and 13 are independent and amended.
The ID(s) submitted on 01/08/2024 and on 12/03/2024 has been considered and is relevant.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 2013/0203435 A1) in view of Bhanage et al (US 20130100807 A1) and Ahmad et al (US 20130303114 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a control apparatus (DPC 902 (Dynamic Spectrum Policy Controller 902 ) in Figs. 35, and Fig. 12, DPC 902a and back up 902b) comprising at least one memory storing instructions (i.e. Fig. 74 memory 7202, 7302, see paragraphs 519 – 523), and at least one processor (Fig. 74 processor 7301, see paragraphs 519 – 523) configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a request (Fig. 35 Request For Resources 3502 received by DPC 902) to lend a first resource of a mobile communication network (i.e. in Fig. 35 DPC 902 receives request for resource 3502 for Network 1 to lend a first resource of a mobile communication network 2 per paragraphs 347 and 348. Note that requesting to lend a resource is equivalent to bidding for a resource for a price that is zero) to a certain operator (i.e. operator of Network 1 to receive available resources at network 2. See also Fig. 61 & paragraphs 433-434) ; (See also Fig. 12 showing the network architecture relied by Figs 35 and 61. Control Apparatus is DPC 902a/902b of Fig. 12 corresponds to the DPC 902 of Fig. 35 and DPC 6104 in Fig. 61. Fig. 12 shows three networks A, B, and C with Network A operator 1204a , Network B operator 1204b and Network C operator 1204 C and relay apparatus 910a, 910b and 910c. see paragraphs 181-184)
determine whether or not lending of the first resource (i.e. available resources from network 2 indicated available in step 3508 of Fig. 35 ) to the certain operator (i.e. operator of network 1 of Fig. 35 ) should be permitted based on the request received by the receiving unit (i.e. per paragraph 348 DPC 902 in Fig. 35 decides if network 1 operator should or should not get the available resources from network 2 based on evaluating the bid offered by network operator 1 in steps 3520 and 3522 of Fig. 35. Per paragraphs 166 and 234 the bidding results in temporary ownership of the resources making the resources being lent/borrowed. See dependent claim 4 fee for lending claimed along the teaching of Smith) ; and
transmit, to a relay apparatus (DSC 910 A of Network 2 is the relay apparatus of Network in Fig. 35. See also Fig. 12) of the mobile communication network (Network 2 of Fig. 35 ), a command (i.e. assign resources request 3524 command in Fig. 35. See paragraphs 348 and 365) for allocating the first resource to the certain operator when the lending is permitted, (In Fig. 35 DPC 902 indicates lending is permitted by indicating Bid is accepted in step 3522 in Fig. 35 and in turn DPC 902 will command DSC 910a of Network 2 to allocate the available resources to network 1 operator through assign resources request 3524 command in Fig. 35. See paragraphs 348 and 365)
Smith fails to disclose calculate a total value of bands of
Bhanage, in the same endeavor, discloses calculate a total value of bands of resources that are not currently leased to the certain operator (See paragraph 0005 stating, mobile network operators are able to lease excess capacity on their underlying physical networks to multiple entities through wireless virtualization where excess capacity is the total value of bands of resources that are not currently leased to the certain operator. See also paragraph 52), and determine a coefficient (See paragraph 31 Constant “C” that represents the cost per unit time and per paragraph 32 C can also be variable as a function of airtime allocation) related to a lease fee which is to be multiplied by a unit price or a respective one of predetermined time periods included in a lease period based on the total value. (See paragraph 78 stating that the revenue determination may be conducted by multiplying the slice allocation for a particular resource (e.g., wireless network device) by a constant "C" that represents the cost per unit time. Here the total value of the lease period is the slice allocation for a particular resource.)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators and then given the well- established teaching of Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators as taught by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network, since Bhanage states in paragraph 52 that the modification results in optimizing revenue for leasing out capacity on the MNO network.
Smith modified by Bhanage fails to disclose resources having priority requested by the certain operator.
Ahmad, in the same endeavor, discloses resources having priority requested by the certain operator. (See paragraph 190 states wherein the requesting operators may be given different priorities, and there may be different operation to distribute the capacity according to the priorities. For example, the top priority party may get what it requested. If the rest may be more than what a second priority party requests, the second priority party may get what it requested. Otherwise, the second priority party may only get a remainder.)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and then given the well- established teaching of Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network as taught by Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests, since Ahmad states in paragraph 3 and abstract that the modification results in efficiently sharing common RAN resources by pooling unallocated resources and accommodate the capacity needs of hosted operators on a real-time basis.
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses a control method (See Figs. 1-74 and control apparatus is DPC 902 (Dynamic Spectrum Policy Controller 902 ) in Figs. 35, and Fig. 12, DPC 902a and back up 902b) comprising:
receiving a request (Fig. 35 Request For Resources 3502 received by DPC 902) to lend a first resource of a mobile communication network (i.e. in Fig. 35 DPC 902 receives request for resource 3502 for Network 1 to lend a first resource of a mobile communication network 2 per paragraphs 347 and 348) to a certain operator (i.e. operator of Network 1 to receive available resources at network 2. See also Fig. 61 & paragraphs 433-434) ; (See also Fig. 12 showing the network architecture relied by Figs 35 and 61. Control Apparatus is DPC 902a/902b of Fig. 12 corresponds to the DPC 902 of Fig. 35 and DPC 6104 in Fig. 61. Fig. 12 shows three networks A, B, and C with Network A operator 1204a , Network B operator 1204b and Network C operator 1204 C and relay apparatus 910a, 910b and 910c. see paragraphs 181-184)
determining whether or not lending of the first resource (i.e. available resources from network 2 indicated available in step 3508 of Fig. 35 ) to the certain operator (i.e. operator of network 1 of Fig. 35 ) should be permitted based on the received request (i.e. per paragraph 348 DPC 902 in Fig. 35 decides if network 1 operator should or should not get the available resources from network 2 based on evaluating the bid offered by network operator 1 in steps 3520 and 3522 of Fig. 35. Per paragraphs 166 and 234 the bidding results in temporary ownership of the resources making the resources being lent/borrowed) ; and
transmitting, to a relay apparatus (DSC 910 A of Network 2 is the rely apparatus of Network in Fig. 35. See also Fig. 12) of the mobile communication network (Network 2 of Fig. 35 ), a command (i.e. assign resources request 3524 command in Fig. 35. See paragraphs 348 and 365) for allocating the first resource to the certain operator when the lending is permitted, (In Fig. 35 DPC 902 indicates lending is permitted by indicating Bid is accepted in step 3522 in Fig. 35 and in turn DPC 902 will command DSC 910a of Network 2 to allocate the available resources to network 1 operator through assign resources request 3524 command in Fig. 35. See paragraphs 348 and 365)
Smith fails to disclose calculate a total value of bands of
Bhanage, in the same endeavor, discloses calculate a total value of bands of resources that are not currently leased to the certain operator (See paragraph 0005 stating, mobile network operators are able to lease excess capacity on their underlying physical networks to multiple entities through wireless virtualization where excess capacity is the total value of bands of resources that are not currently leased to the certain operator. See also paragraph 52), and determine a coefficient (See paragraph 31 Constant “C” that represents the cost per unit time and per paragraph 32 C can also be variable as a function of airtime allocation) related to a lease fee which is to be multiplied by a unit price or a respective one of predetermined time periods included in a lease period based on the total value. (See paragraph 78 stating that the revenue determination may be conducted by multiplying the slice allocation for a particular resource (e.g., wireless network device) by a constant "C" that represents the cost per unit time. Here the total value of the lease period is the slice allocation for a particular resource.)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators and then given the well- established teaching of Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators as taught by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network, since Bhanage states in paragraph 52 that the modification results in optimizing revenue for leasing out capacity on the MNO network.
Smith modified by Bhanage fails to disclose resources having priority requested by the certain operator.
Ahmad, in the same endeavor, discloses resources having priority requested by the certain operator. (See paragraph 190 states wherein the requesting operators may be given different priorities, and there may be different operation to distribute the capacity according to the priorities. For example, the top priority party may get what it requested. If the rest may be more than what a second priority party requests, the second priority party may get what it requested. Otherwise, the second priority party may only get a remainder.)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and then given the well- established teaching of Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network as taught by Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests, since Ahmad states in paragraph 3 and abstract that the modification results in efficiently sharing common RAN resources by pooling unallocated resources and accommodate the capacity needs of hosted operators on a real-time basis.
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform processing (i.e. paragraphs 518 and 527 on computer readable non-transitory medium) including:
(See Figs. 1-74 and control apparatus is DPC 902 (Dynamic Spectrum Policy Controller 902 ) in Figs. 35, and Fig. 12, DPC 902a and back up 902b)
receiving a request (Fig. 35 Request For Resources 3502 received by DPC 902) to lend a first resource of a mobile communication network (i.e. in Fig. 35 DPC 902 receives request for resource 3502 for Network 1 to lend a first resource of a mobile communication network 2 per paragraphs 347 and 348) to a certain operator (i.e. operator of Network 1 to receive available resources at network 2. See also Fig. 61 & paragraphs 433-434) ; (See also Fig. 12 showing the network architecture relied by Figs 35 and 61. Control Apparatus is DPC 902a/902b of Fig. 12 corresponds to the DPC 902 of Fig. 35 and DPC 6104 in Fig. 61. Fig. 12 shows three networks A, B, and C with Network A operator 1204a , Network B operator 1204b and Network C operator 1204 C and relay apparatus 910a, 910b and 910c. see paragraphs 181-184)
determining whether or not lending of the first resource (i.e. available resources from network 2 indicated available in step 3508 of Fig. 35 ) to the certain operator (i.e. operator of network 1 of Fig. 35 ) should be permitted based on the received request (i.e. per paragraph 348 DPC 902 in Fig. 35 decides if network 1 operator should or should not get the available resources from network 2 based on evaluating the bid offered by network operator 1 in steps 3520 and 3522 of Fig. 35. Per paragraphs 166 and 234 the bidding results in temporary ownership of the resources making the resources being lent/borrowed) ; and
transmitting, to a relay apparatus (DSC 910 A of Network 2 is the rely apparatus of Network in Fig. 35. See also Fig. 12) of the mobile communication network (Network 2 of Fig. 35 ), a command (i.e. assign resources request 3524 command in Fig. 35. See paragraphs 348 and 365) for allocating the first resource to the certain operator when the lending is permitted, (In Fig. 35 DPC 902 indicates lending is permitted by indicating Bid is accepted in step 3522 in Fig. 35 and in turn DPC 902 will command DSC 910a of Network 2 to allocate the available resources to network 1 operator through assign resources request 3524 command in Fig. 35. See paragraphs 348 and 365)
Smith fails to disclose calculate a total value of bands of
Bhanage, in the same endeavor, discloses calculate a total value of bands of resources that are not currently leased to the certain operator (See paragraph 0005 stating, mobile network operators are able to lease excess capacity on their underlying physical networks to multiple entities through wireless virtualization where excess capacity is the total value of bands of resources that are not currently leased to the certain operator. See also paragraph 52), and determine a coefficient (See paragraph 31 Constant “C” that represents the cost per unit time and per paragraph 32 C can also be variable as a function of airtime allocation) related to a lease fee which is to be multiplied by a unit price or a respective one of predetermined time periods included in a lease period based on the total value. (See paragraph 78 stating that the revenue determination may be conducted by multiplying the slice allocation for a particular resource (e.g., wireless network device) by a constant "C" that represents the cost per unit time. Here the total value of the lease period is the slice allocation for a particular resource.)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators and then given the well- established teaching of Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators as taught by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network, since Bhanage states in paragraph 52 that the modification results in optimizing revenue for leasing out capacity on the MNO network.
Smith modified by Bhanage fails to disclose resources having priority requested by the certain operator.
Ahmad, in the same endeavor, discloses resources having priority requested by the certain operator. (See paragraph 190 states wherein the requesting operators may be given different priorities, and there may be different operation to distribute the capacity according to the priorities. For example, the top priority party may get what it requested. If the rest may be more than what a second priority party requests, the second priority party may get what it requested. Otherwise, the second priority party may only get a remainder.)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and then given the well- established teaching of Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network as taught by Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests, since Ahmad states in paragraph 3 and abstract that the modification results in efficiently sharing common RAN resources by pooling unallocated resources and accommodate the capacity needs of hosted operators on a real-time basis.
Regarding claim 2, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according claim 1, Smith further discloses wherein the certain operator is a mobile virtual network operator. (See paragraph 194-195 indicating the certain operator is a mobile virtual network operator and in particular restates the limitation as “In an embodiment, the DSA communication system may enable Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO) to utilize unused spectrum capacity. For example, the DPC 902 may aggregate multiple MVNO's to utilize unused spectrum capacity in a prioritization scheme. This would enable an MVNO to sell its unused or under used capacity to another MVNO thereby ensuring that both MVNO's operating efficiently.”)
Regarding claim 3, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1,Smith further discloses at least one processor is configured to lend the first resource to the certain operator when the first resource is included in lendable resources managed in association with the certain operator. (See paragraphs 140, 180 , and 194 effectively teaching the limitation as each operator and DSA of each network submits unused available spectrum frequency resources to the control apparatus DPC 902 and DPC 902 manages lendable/leasable resources as a pool to b made available to a certain operator like operator of network 1. See paragraphs 143, 144, 189 and 190-193 and Figs. 15 and 16)
Regarding claim 5, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, Smith further discloses at least one processor is configured to determine a fee for lending the first resource to the certain operator based on an availability status of resources of the mobile communication network . (i.e. Smith teaches the limitation verbatim in paragraph 166 and Smith states in Paragraph 166 “…For example, the primary provider may auction and the secondary provider may bid for available spectrum resources. The bidding may be a fee based process; which may involve managing the reselling of unused spectrum on temporary or permanent basis to efficiently manage excess resources that might otherwise go unused for that time; or managing leasing of excess RF spectrum on temporary or permanent basis.”)
Regarding claim 7, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, Smith further discloses at least one processor is configured to determine wherein when the lending of the first resource is requested from a plurality of operators based on a bidding process from each of the plurality of operators. (Per Fig. 35 when the request for resource to be lent is received at 3502 in Fig. 35, at the control apparatus, DPC 902. A plurality of operators of Networks 2 and 3 participated in the bidding process by providing available resources from network 2 and network 3 in steps in 3508 and 3510 in Fig. 35 as detailed in paragraphs 347 and 348.)
Regarding claim 8, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, Smith further discloses wherein when the lending of the first resource is requested from a plurality of operators. (Per Fig. 35 when the request for resource to be lent is received at 3502 in Fig. 35, at the control apparatus, DPC 902. A plurality of operators of Networks 2 and 3 participated in the bidding process by providing available resources from network 2 and network 3 in steps in 3508 and 3510 in Fig. 35 as detailed in paragraphs 347 and 348.), at least one processor is configured to determine an operator to which it lends the first resource from the plurality of operators based on a lending record of the first resource to each of the plurality of operators in a predetermined period. (Per paragraph 175 Smith indicates the resource to be lent from an operator is based on the duration of the available resource that meets the request best. See paragraphs 175 stating “For example, some of the policy and resource criteria imposed by the Host Network Operator may include: Availability of spectrum (e.g., separate or co-existence); availability of capacity/bandwidth (e.g., RF and Core);… rating (e.g., how services are rated, i.e., possible special discount for off-peak usage); geographic boundary (e.g., defining zones or cells for inclusion); time (e.g., defining time and day(s) for inclusion including); duration (e.g., defining incremental allocation based on time and geographic boundary);…”. Paragraph 176 also states “…and duration (e.g., for how long are the resources requested).” See also paragraphs 214 and 230)
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected in the same scope as claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected in the same scope as claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected in the same scope as claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected in the same scope as claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Bhanage and Ahmad and further in view of Ferguson et al (US 20090144412 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1 as set forth above, and Smith further discloses at least one processor is configured to determine a fee for lending the first resource to the certain operator (See paragraphs 150, 166 and 282. Smith in paragraph 166 states “…The bidding may be a fee based process; which may involve managing the reselling of unused spectrum on temporary or permanent basis to efficiently manage excess resources that might otherwise go unused for that time; or managing leasing of excess RF spectrum on temporary or permanent basis.”. )
Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad fails to disclose fee for lending the first resource to the certain operator based on a time zone of a period during which the first resource is lent to the certain operator.
Ferguson in the same endeavor discloses fee for lending the first resource to the certain operator based on a time zone of a period during which the first resource is lent to the certain operator.(Per paragraph 100, Ferguson discloses offering bandwidth on the underutilized uploading channels to a CDN operator and the price for the offer depends on amount of data being uploaded and time zone. See paragraphs 99 and 101-103)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests and then given the well- established teaching of Ferguson ’s techniques for pricing based on time zone, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests as taught by Ferguson ’s techniques for pricing based on time zone, since Ferguson states in paragraph 99 that the modification results in allowing the operator in distributing digital data at the cheapest price.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected in the same scope as claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected in the same scope as claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Bhanage and Ahamad and further in view of Park et al (US 20200359415 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1 as set forth above, and Smith further discloses at least one processor is configured to determine a fee for lending the first resource to the certain operator (See paragraphs 150, 166 and 282. Smith in paragraph 166 states “…The bidding may be a fee based process; which may involve managing the reselling of unused spectrum on temporary or permanent basis to efficiently manage excess resources that might otherwise go unused for that time; or managing leasing of excess RF spectrum on temporary or permanent basis.”. )
Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad fails to disclose determining fee for lending based on a ratio of resources already lent to a second operator other than a first operator managing the mobile communication network to all resources of the mobile communication network.
Park in the same endeavor discloses determining fee for lending based on a ratio of resources already lent to a second operator other than a first operator managing the mobile communication network to all resources of the mobile communication network.(Park’s paragraph 156 discloses the manager device may calculate a resource occupancy ratio of each operator. Herein, the resource occupancy ratio may be a ratio of a band occupied by an operator or a metric indicating an amount of resource to be occupied in a band. The manager device may calculate the resource occupancy rate of each operator from the sharing assisted information. Park indicates a cost/price is calculated for resources to be shared/lent to other operators is a ratio of band occupied by a second operator.)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests and then given the well- established teaching of Park ’s techniques for sharing bandwidth, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests as taught by Park ’s techniques for sharing bandwidth, since Park states in paragraph 9-11 that the modification results in allowing sharing a band by considering various performances between operators in a wireless communication system and resolving a contention between operators in a wireless communication system and also maximizing resource utilization efficiency in a wireless communication system.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view Bhanage and Ahmad and further in view of O’Neill (US 20060034438 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1 as set forth above, Smith further discloses wherein when the lending of the first resource is requested from a plurality of operators (Per Fig. 35 when the request for resource to be lent is received at 3502 in Fig. 35, at the control apparatus, DPC 902. A plurality of operators of Networks 2 and 3 participated in the bidding process by providing available resources from network 2 and network 3 in steps in 3508 and 3510 in Fig. 35 as detailed in paragraphs 347 and 348.), at least one processor is configured to determine an operator to which it lends the first resource from the plurality of operators (see paragraphs 175, 176, 214 and 230.)
Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad fails to explicitly disclose lends the first resource from the plurality of operators based on the number of subscribers of each of the plurality of operators. Smith in paragraphs 429, 512, 515 suggest the effect of number of subscribers on available/excess resources with each operator.
O’Neil in the same endeavor discloses lends the first resource from the plurality of operators based on the number of subscribers of each of the plurality of operators.(See O’Neill in paragraph 77 indicating lending resource based on the number of subscribers of the operator. In particular in paragraph 77 O’Neill indicates “…when the access link such as a wireless link has a time varying amount of total available resource as a result of physical conditions, and the number of subscribers per access link varies over time as the subscribers move between wireless cells, then the amount of resource available for pre-allocation and for dynamic allocation is highly variable.”)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests and then given the well- established teaching of O’Neill ’s techniques for resource assigning based on number of subscribers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests as taught by O’Neil ’s for resource assigning based on number of subscribers, since O’Neil states in paragraph 4 and the abstract that the modification results in allowing tracking resource utilization on a per subscriber basis.
Regarding Claim 11, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1 as set forth above, Smith further discloses wherein when the lending of the first resource is requested from a plurality of operators (Per Fig. 35 when the request for resource to be lent is received at 3502 in Fig. 35, at the control apparatus, DPC 902. A plurality of operators of Networks 2 and 3 participated in the bidding process by providing available resources from network 2 and network 3 in steps in 3508 and 3510 in Fig. 35 as detailed in paragraphs 347 and 348.), at least one processor is configured to determine an operator to which it lends the first resource from the plurality of operators (see paragraphs 175, 176, 214 and 230.)
Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad fails to explicitly disclose lends the first resource from the plurality of operators based on the number of subscribers of each of the plurality of operators, the number of subscribers who are currently performing communication through the mobile communication network. Smith in paragraphs 429, 512, 515 suggest the effect of number of subscribers on available/excess resources with each operator.
O’Neil in the same endeavor discloses lends the first resource from the plurality of operators based on the number of subscribers of each of the plurality of operators.(See O’Neill in paragraph 77 indicating lending resource based on the number of subscribers of the operator. In particular in paragraph 77 O’Neill indicates “…when the access link such as a wireless link has a time varying amount of total available resource as a result of physical conditions, and the number of subscribers per access link varies over time as the subscribers move between wireless cells, then the amount of resource available for pre-allocation and for dynamic allocation is highly variable.”) the number of subscribers who are currently performing communication through the mobile communication network.(see O’Neil paragraph 77 indicating the number of subscribers currently communicating in the network as current traffic and subscriber load.)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests and then given the well- established teaching of O’Neill ’s techniques for resource assigning based on number of subscribers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests as taught by O’Neil ’s for resource assigning based on number of subscribers, since O’Neil states in paragraph 4 and the abstract that the modification results in allowing tracking resource utilization on a per subscriber basis.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Bhanage and Ahmad and further in view of Sugiarto (US 20020141420 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1 as set forth above, Smith further discloses wherein when the lending of the first resource is requested from a plurality of operators (Per Fig. 35 when the request for resource to be lent is received at 3502 in Fig. 35, at the control apparatus, DPC 902. A plurality of operators of Networks 2 and 3 participated in the bidding process by providing available resources from network 2 and network 3 in steps in 3508 and 3510 in Fig. 35 as detailed in paragraphs 347 and 348.), at least one processor is configured to determine an operator to which it lends the first resource from the plurality of operators (see paragraphs 175, 176, 214 and 230.)
Smith modified by Bhanage and Ahmad fails to disclose based on, among subscribers each of the plurality of operators, the number of subscribers who are in a service area of a base station of the mobile communication network.
Sugiarto in the same endeavor discloses based on, among subscribers each of the plurality of operators, the number of subscribers who are in a service area of a base station of the mobile communication network.(See paragraphs 36-37 where Sugiatro discloses number of subscribers in a base station coverage area impact the number of available resource of an operator/base station)
In view of the above, having Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests and then given the well- established teaching of Sugiarto ’s techniques for resource assigning based on number of subscribers in a service area, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Smith ’s dynamic spectrum arbitrage configuration for operators modified by Bhanage ’s technique for optimizing revenue for an operator network and Ahmad ’s technique for flexible network sharing through prioritizing requests as taught by Sugiarto ’s techniques for resource assigning based on number of subscribers in a service area, since Sugiarto states in paragraphs 6-7 that the modification results in one advantage of the system enforcing Differentiated Level of Service (DLS) agreements between the wholesaler and the ISPs and another advantage of the system is helping each reseller control the amount of bandwidth that is leased to their subscribers and prevent over-subscription.
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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights