Carrier Aggregation Radio Unit Sharing Across Multiple Operators

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Multiple operators in wireless communications systems expend significant deployment and operational costs to serve user equipments in overlapping coverage areas due to the lack of effective coordination in sharing radio units.

Innovation Solution

Operators coordinate carrier sharing through semi-static and dynamic configurations, allowing time domain patterns to be pre-negotiated or dynamically adjusted, enabling efficient use of resources via a single radio unit.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If multiple operators deploy separate RUs to serve overlapping coverage areas, then each operator can independently provide service, but deployment and operational costs increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveservice independenceVSAvoiddeployment and operational costs

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

Multiple operators share a single physical RU infrastructure by implementing virtualization and logical isolation mechanisms. The system allows different operators to independently control and manage their respective carriers through virtualized resource allocation, achieving cost reduction while maintaining service independence through logical separation rather than physical duplication

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

A single RU is designed to serve multiple operators simultaneously by implementing multi-functional capabilities. The RU can dynamically allocate resources to different operators based on demand, supporting multiple carriers and service types through a unified platform that provides universal service capability across different operator networks

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

2Productivity

If operators share carriers through coordination, then resource utilization efficiency improves, but system complexity and coordination overhead increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveresource utilization efficiencyVSAvoidcoordination system complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

A centralized resource coordination entity acts as an intermediary between multiple operators sharing the same RU. This mediator manages carrier availability, handles coordination signaling, and allocates time intervals for carrier usage, simplifying the interaction complexity by providing a single point of control rather than requiring direct peer-to-peer coordination between all operator pairs

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts operational parameters such as time interval allocations, carrier activation states, and resource sharing configurations based on real-time demand and coordination agreements. By changing these parameters rather than reconfiguring the entire system architecture, the patent achieves flexible resource utilization while minimizing structural complexity

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Device complexity

If operators use semi-static configuration for carrier sharing, then coordination overhead is reduced, but flexibility to adapt to changing conditions decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecoordination overheadVSAvoidcarrier sharing flexibility

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements a hybrid configuration mechanism where semi-static time domain patterns establish baseline resource allocations with low overhead, while dynamic signaling enables real-time adjustments when conditions change. This allows the system to operate efficiently in stable conditions with minimal coordination while maintaining the capability to adapt quickly when traffic patterns or service requirements change

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

4Adaptability or versatility

If operators dynamically indicate resource availability, then adaptability to changing conditions improves, but signaling overhead and decision latency increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveresource sharing adaptabilityVSAvoiddecision latency

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

Operators pre-negotiate and establish semi-static time domain patterns and resource sharing agreements in advance, creating a framework that reduces the need for frequent dynamic decisions. This preliminary configuration allows the system to operate with minimal signaling overhead during normal conditions while maintaining the ability to make rapid adjustments when exceptional conditions arise

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS12621090B2Physical layer designs for carrier aggregation-based radio unit sharing

Publication Date: 2026.05.05 QUALCOMM INC

AI summary

Methods, systems, and devices for wireless communications are described. In wireless communications, operators may coordinate resource sharing over respective carriers. A user interface may receive, by a first network entity associated with a first carrier from a second network entity associated with a second carrier, an indication of a first set of time intervals when the second carrier is available for communications from the first network entity. The first network entity may be associated with a first operator and the second network entity may be associated with a second operator. Both the first network entity and the second network entity may be coupled to a single radio unit. The first network entity may transmit based on receiving the indication, control signaling indicating a carrier aggregation mode associated with the first carrier and the second carrier for one or more user equipment.