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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on7/10/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic et al. (US 20230254702 A1), hereinafter Damnjanovic, in view of Alasti et al. (US 20230217505 A1), hereinafter Alasti.
Regarding Claim 1:
Damnjanovic discloses receiving, from a guest operator of a plurality of guest operators of a telecommunications network, a request for resources from a host operator (see Fig. 5, “Resource Request 502”; see also Fig. 6, “Resource Request 602”; paragraph [0045], “UR 115 may transmit a request for network communication links (e.g., one or more communication links with one or more RUs) associated with a particular spectrum resource allocation”);
wherein each guest operator of the plurality of guest operators shares a radio unit provided by the host operator (see paragraph [0032], multiple distributed units (DUs) may be connected to one or more radio units (RUs)”; see also Fig. 3, “RU 320”);
determining whether the request for resources is satisfiable based on a current resource allocation for the guest operator and in response to determining that the request for resources is not satisfiable based on the current resource allocation, allocating additional resources to the guest operator (see Fig. 5, “Determine Resource Allocation 510” and “Resource Denial 514”; see also Fig. 6, “Determine Resource Allocation 614” and “Partial Resource Grant 616”).
Damnjanovic does not disclose wherein the additional resources are obtained from one or more additional guest operators of the plurality of guest operators.
Alasti discloses wherein the additional resources are obtained from one or more additional guest operators of the plurality of guest operators (see paragraph [0022], unused portions of their spectrum resources may be allocated to other guest operators”; see also paragraph [0024], “unused portions of the spectrum resources assigned to a first guest operator may be reallocated to a second guest operator”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic in view of Alasti to achieve flexibly and efficiently apportion spectrum and radio resources amongst multiple guest network operators (Alasti [0006]).
Regarding Claim 2: Damnjanovic and Alasti teach the method of claim 1.
Damnjanovic further discloses the additional resources comprise additional bandwidth and the request for resources identifies a bandwidth zone of a total bandwidth provided by the host operator (see paragraph [0053], “the host RU 115 may initially assign BWPs to particular UEs 141”; see also paragraph [0054], “the host RU 115 may dynamically modify BWPs assigned to one or more UEs 141”; Fig. 5, “Resource Request 502”; and Fig. 6, “Resource Request 602”).
Damnjanovic does not disclose non-traffic bandwidth corresponding to the guest operator and the bandwidth zone corresponds to traffic bandwidth corresponding to the guest operator.
Alasti discloses non-traffic bandwidth corresponding to the guest operator (see Fig. 7, “sync”; see also paragraph [0062], “guard bands and synchronization channels may be maintained”).
and bandwidth allocated to guest operators (see paragraph [0063], “band 703 may be dis-associated with the second guest network and re-assigned to the first guest network”; see also paragraph [0064], “the band can be re-assigned for use by the second guest network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic in view of Alasti to achieve flexibly and efficiently apportion spectrum and radio resources amongst multiple guest network operators (Alasti [0006]).
Regarding Claim 3: Damnjanovic and Alasti teach the method of claim 2.
Damnjanovic further discloses determining whether the request for resources is satisfiable based on the current resource allocation (see Fig. 5, “Determine Resource Allocation 510”; see also Fig. 6, “Determine Resource Allocation 614”; paragraph [0008], “The resource allocation for the shared spectrum resources may be based on the first consideration and the second consideration”).
Damnjanovic does not explicitly disclose determining whether the non-traffic bandwidth is confined within the bandwidth zone.
Alasti discloses determining whether the non-traffic bandwidth is confined within the bandwidth zone (“see Fig. 7, “sync” and paragraph [0062], “guard bands and synchronization channels may be maintained”, and paragraph [0063], “band 703 may be dis-associated with the second guest network and re-assigned to the first guest network,” wherein the maintained synchronization channels and guard bands correspond to non-traffic bandwidth confined within allocated spectrum bands.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic in view of Alasti to maintain non-traffic bandwidth within allocated spectrum bands during resource allocation and reassignment to achieve flexibly and efficiently apportion spectrum and radio resources amongst multiple guest network operators (Alasti [0006]).
Regarding Claim 8: Damnjanovic and Alasti teach method of claim 2, which further teaches the non-traffic bandwidth.
Damnjanovic further discloses bandwidth corresponding to at least one of: a control channel or signal (see paragraph [0008], “control information”; and paragraph [0053], “BWPs assigned to one or more UEs 141”, see also Fig. 7, “sync,” corresponding to a synchronization signal.
Regarding Claim 9: Damnjanovic and Alasti teach the method of claim 1.
Damnjanovic discloses obtaining additional spectrum resources from guest networks within shared radio infrastructure (see paragraph [0012], “a host network may allocate spectrum resources to one or more guest networks”; see also Fig. 3).
Damnjanovic does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more additional operators is a single guest operator.
Alasti discloses wherein one or more additional operators is a single guest operator (“see paragraph [0063], “band 703 may be dis-associated with the second network and re-assigned to the first guest network”), wherein spectrum resources are assigned from the second guest network to the first guest network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic in view of Alasti to provide additional resources from a single guest operator to achieve flexibly and efficiently apportion spectrum and radio resources amongst multiple guest network operators (Alasti [0006]).
Regarding Claim 10: Damnjanovic and Alasti teach the method of claim 1.
Damnjanovic discloses obtaining additional spectrum resources from guest networks within shared radio infrastructure (see paragraph [0012], “a host network may allocate spectrum resources to one or more guest networks”; see also Fig. 3).
Damnjanovic does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more additional guest operators comprises at least two guest operators.
Alasti discloses wherein the one or more additional guest operators comprises at least two guest operators (see paragraph [0012], “guest network 102, 103, 104 are allowed to communicate with one or more UEs 141-143 using allocated bandwidth 117, 118, 119 on the host’s RU 115”; see also paragraph [0007], “spectrum and radio resources may be dynamically apportioned amongst multiple guest network operators”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic in view of Alasti to provide additional resources from at least two guest operators to achieve flexibly and efficiently apportion spectrum and radio resources amongst multiple guest network operators (Alasti [0006]).
Regarding Claim 11: Damnjanovic and Alasti teach method of claim 1.
Damnjanovic discloses each guest operator of the plurality of guest operators manages a respective distribution unit and a respective centralized unit associated with a respective core network (see paragraph [0032], “multiple distributed units (DUs) may be connected to one or more radio units (RUs)”; see also Fig. 3, “CU 302,” “DU 310a,” “DU 310b,” “DU 310c,” “DU 310d,” “DU 310e,” and “DU 310f”).
Regarding Claim [12-14] and [19-20] “System” are rejected under the same reasoning as corresponding Claim [1-3], [8-11] “Method,” where Damnjanovic teaches spectrum allocation (Damnjanovic [0032] and [0045]; Figs. 3 and 5), and Alasti further teaches spectrum reallocation and synchronization/control signaling (Alasti [0006] and [0063]; Fig. 7).
Claims 4-7 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic and Alasti, in view of Ji et al. (US 20080214199 A1), hereinafter Ji.
Regarding Claim 4: Damnjanovic, Alasti and Ji teach method of claim 2.
Damnjanovic discloses allocating the additional resources to the guest operator comprises: requesting, from one or more neighboring guest operators, the additional bandwidth (see Fig. 5, “Resource Request 502”; see also Fig. 6, “Resource Request 602”; paragraph [0045], “UR 115 may transmit a request for network communication links (e.g., one or more communication links with one or more RUs) associated with a particular spectrum resource allocation”).
determining whether the one or more neighboring guest operators can satisfy the request for additional bandwidth (see Fig. 6, “Determine Resource Allocation 614”; see also paragraph [0008], “The resource allocation for the shared spectrum resources may be based on the first consideration and the second consideration”).
Damnjanovic and Alasti do not disclose wherein the one or more neighboring guest operators are allocated one or more adjacent bandwidth zones adjacent to the bandwidth zone.
Ji discloses wherein the one or more neighboring guest operators are allocated one or more adjacent bandwidth zones adjacent to the bandwidth zone (see paragraph [0010], “frequencies usable by a central subdivision but not in use by neighboring subdivisions”; see also paragraph [0032], “neighboring cells and/or sectors should generally cooperate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic and Alasti in view of Ji to achieve an improved systematic dynamic frequency-sharing process (Ji [0009]).
Regarding Claim 5: Damnjanovic and Alasti and Ji teach method of claim 4, which further teach allocation between neighboring sectors.
Damnjanovic discloses in response to determining that the one or more guest operators can satisfy the request for additional bandwidth; reallocating one or more bandwidth zones to the guest operator (see Fig. 6, “Determine Resource Allocation 614”; see also Fig. 6, “Partial Resource Grant 616”; and paragraph [0008], “The resource allocation for the shared spectrum resources may be based on the first consideration and the second consideration.”).
Regarding Claim 6: Damnjanovic and Alasti and Ji teach method of claim 4.
Damnjanovic discloses in response to determining that the one or more guest operators cannot satisfy the request for additional bandwidth; allocating other additional resources to the guest operator bandwidth zones (see Fig. 5, “Resource Denial 514”; see also Fig. 6, “Determine Resource Allocation 614”; and paragraph [0008], “The resource allocation for the shared spectrum resources may be based on the first consideration and the second consideration.”).
Damnjanovic and Alasti do not disclose identifying one or more non-neighboring guest operators to provide the additional bandwidth wherein the one or more non-neighboring guest operators are allocated one or more non-adjacent bandwidth zones that are not adjacent to the bandwidth zone.
Ji discloses identifying one or more non-neighboring “non-adjacent” guest operators to provide the additional bandwidth wherein the one or more non-neighboring guest operators are allocated one or more non-adjacent bandwidth zones that are not adjacent to the bandwidth zone (see paragraph [0051], “other non-adjacent sectors may be included when determining which frequency channels to select”; see also paragraph [0031], “neighbor cell or sector may not be immediately adjacent”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic and Alasti in view of Ji to provide additional bandwidth from non-neighboring guest operators allocated non-adjacent bandwidth zones that are not adjacent to the bandwidth zone to achieve an improved systematic dynamic frequency-sharing process (Ji [0009]).
Regarding Claim 7: Damnjanovic, Alasti and Ji teach method of claim 6
Damnjanovic discloses allocating the additional resources to the guest operator (see Fig. 6, “Partial Resource Grant 616”; see also Fig. 6, “Communication Via Partial Resource Grant 620”).
Damnjanovic and Alasti do not disclose converting the one or more non-neighboring guest operators into one or more new neighboring guest operators.
Ji discloses converting the one or more non-neighboring “non-adjacent” guest operators into one or more new neighboring guest operators (see paragraph [0032], “neighboring cells and/or sectors should generally cooperate”; see also paragraph [0051], “other non-adjacent sectors may be included when determining which frequency channels to select”; paragraph [0031], “neighbor cell or sector may not be immediately adjacent” and paragraph [0052], “request that a neighbor cell release a frequency channel”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic and Alasti in view of Ji to achieve an improved systematic dynamic frequency-sharing process (Ji [0009]).
Regarding Claims [15–18] “System” are rejected under the same reasoning as corresponding Claims [4–7] “Method,” where Damnjanovic teaches allocation of radio frequency resources among guest operators (see paragraphs [0050]), Alasti teaches flexible spectrum allocation (Alasti [0006], and Ji further teaches reassignment among neighboring and non-neighboring regions ([Ji 0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights