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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of alternate embodiments of Haghighat, and Baligh.
In the updated rejection below, newly cited portions of Haghighat disclose measuring candidate paths (fig. 4A and para. 125, especially the last two sentences; note: measurements for pairs of respective beam indexes and reflected beam indexes) and determining a criteria as the best of the joint candidates (i.e., end-to-end candidate paths each having a beam index and a reflected beam index; para. 127, especially the last sentence), where the measurements are channel measurements associated with the candidate paths and radiated powers (para. 125, CQI and RSRP for the beam pair).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat et al. (US 2024/0388326 as supported at least by the corresponding passages and figures of Provisional application No. 63/219,952 and 63/228,873) in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0250747) and Baligh et al. (US 2023/0308140). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Haghighat discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (fig. 4A, item 202), comprising (para. 266): memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors, individually or collectively, configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: monitor candidate paths for channel access (paras. 74, 104 and 134; note: preferred beam for a wireless channel or frequency channel), wherein the candidate paths include two or more paths between the apparatus and a first wireless node through one intelligent reflecting surface (fig. 4A; para. 125), determine at least one path among the candidate paths for communications with the first wireless node based at least in part on one or more criteria applied to measured properties associated with the candidate paths (paras. 125 and 129-134; note: joint beam quality metric report to determine a preferred beam path), wherein value of the measured properties differ among the candidate paths formed through the one intelligent reflecting surface (paras. 125-132; note: best or preferred joint beam path based on WRTU beam quality metric measurements among the different paired beam indexes).
However, the embodiment of Haghighat fails to disclose the apparatus to communicate with the first wireless node via the at least one path. In another embodiment, Haghighat discloses communicating with a best or preferred beam (fig. 5, steps 504 and 508; para. 145, especially the third and fourth sentences). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to communicate with the first wireless node via the at least one path in the embodiment of Haghighat. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, optimizing communication over a wireless channel as is known in the art (Haghighat, paras. 134, last sentence, and para. 145; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Haghighat fails to disclose the paths between the apparatus and a first wireless node are through two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces, wherein the two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces are positioned at different locations relative to at least one of the apparatus of the first wireless node, and wherein value of the measured properties differ among the candidate paths formed through the two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces. Li discloses two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces used to optimize transmission (fig. 3; paras. 6-7 and 9; note: surfaces in locations that are indoors, outdoors, fixed and/or movable. paras. 44 and 65; paras. 54, 71 and 74 (especially the last sentence) and Baligh discloses measurements of two or more reflecting surfaces (figs. 4A, items 445a and 445b, and fig. 5; para. 323, and para. 324, especially the second and fourth sentences; note: CQI of an RIS). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the paths between the apparatus and a first wireless node through two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces, wherein the two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces are positioned at different locations relative to at least one of the apparatus of the first wireless node, and wherein value of the measured properties differ among the candidate paths formed through the two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces in the invention of Haghighat. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, allowing a best reflecting surface (or best reflecting location) to be used for communication as is known in the art (Li, fig. 3 and paras. 6-7, 9, 44, 54, 65 and 74 (especially the last sentence); Baligh, figs. 4A and 5, and paras. 323-323; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the measured properties comprise: channel measurements associated with the candidate paths (Haghighat, para. 125; Baligh, paras. 323-324); link delays associated with the candidate paths (Haghighat, paras. 137-141; note: delay based on a direct beam);
Regarding claim 3, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to receive, from the first wireless node, signaling indicating one or more properties associated with the candidate paths (Haghighat, step 508; paras. 118, 125, 137 and 144; Li, fig. 4, step S114-S116 and paras. 71 and 74; para. 67; note: preamble indicating which path (best path) is used by the UE; Baligh, paras. 323-324).
Regarding claim 4, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to measure one or more properties associated with the candidate paths (Haghighat, para. 144, first and last sentences; para. 145, first two sentences; note: the base station picks the best candidate; Li, paras. 67, 71 and 74; note: best path selected for use; Baligh, paras. 323-324).
Regarding claim 5, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: determine, for each of the candidate paths, a rank based at least in part on the one or more criteria; and determine the at least one path based on the ranks associated with the candidate paths (Haghighat, para. 145, first two sentences; note: the base station ranks (compares) the candidates based on RSRP and delay to pick the best beam pair; Li, paras. 67, 71 and 74; Baligh, paras. 323-324).
Regarding claim 7, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to select the at least one path with a highest rank among the ranks associated with the candidate paths (Haghighat, para. 145, first two sentences; note: the base station ranks (compares) the candidates based on RSRP and delay to pick the best (highest rank) beam pair; Li, paras. 67, 71 and 74; Baligh, paras. 323-324).
Regarding claim 8, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria includes instantaneous measurements (Haghighat, paras. 138 and 144-145; Li, paras. 67, 71 and 74; Baligh, paras. 323-324), time-averaged measurements (Haghighat, para. 200, second sentence; note: average CQI of a reflective configuration state – paras. 93, 106 and 193), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the candidate paths is associated with a spatial parameter (Haghighat, para. 171; note: spatial filter used by a WTRU for beam reception).
Regarding claim 10, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 9, wherein each of the candidate paths is associated with a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state indicative of the spatial parameter (Haghighat, paras. 181 and 186-187; note: TCI is related to QCL and a CSI-RS, and the CSI-RS is related to the spatial filter).
Regarding claim 11, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: select the candidate paths from a plurality of paths (Haghighat, para. 44, third and fourth sentences; note: the base station provides the selected candidates to the WTRU; Li, paras. 67, 71 and 74; Baligh, paras. 323-324); transmit, to the first wireless node, an indication of the candidate paths (Haghighat, step 502; para. 144; note: beam candidates); and receive, from the first wireless node, signaling indicating one or more properties associated with the candidate paths (Haghighat, para. 144, seventh sentence; note: beam report; Li, paras. 67, 71 and 74; Baligh, paras. 323-324).
Regarding claim 12, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: transmitting, to the first wireless node, scheduling indicating the at least one path (Haghighat, fig. 10 and paras. 169-170, 193 and 238; note: DL and UL scheduling using a beam); and wherein communicating with the first wireless node comprises communicating with the first wireless node based on the scheduling (Haghighat, fig. 10 and para. 169-170, 193 and 238).
Regarding claim 13, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: determine a plurality of paths among the candidate paths based at least in part on the one or more criteria associated with the candidate paths; and communicate with the first wireless node via the plurality of paths in separate transmission occasions for each of the plurality of paths or in a same transmission occasion for the plurality of paths (Haghighat, fig. 5 and para. 133, 197 and 200 (especially the last sentence); note: periodically selecting or updating the best path among candidate paths).
Regarding claim 14, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the candidate paths include a plurality of paths; and each of the plurality of paths is formed through a different intelligent reflecting surface among the two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces (Haghighat, figs. 2 and 4A-5, and paras. 74 and 78-79; paras. 143-144, each first sentences; Li, fig. 3; Baligh, paras. 323-324).
Regarding claim 15, Haghighat in view of Li and Baligh teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to communicate with the first wireless node in an unlicensed spectrum (Haghighat, para. 64, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 16, Haghighat discloses an apparatus (fig. 4A, item 206) for wireless communication, comprising (Haghighat, fig. 1B and para. 266): a memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors, individually or collectively, configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive, from a network entity, signaling indicating candidate paths for channel access (step 502), wherein the candidate paths include two or more paths (Haghighat, items 408 and 404) between the apparatus and the network entity through one intelligent reflecting surfaces surface (item 204; para. 125), measure one or more properties associated with the candidate paths (Haghighat, step 504; fig. 4A, items 408 and 404, and 4B, items 414 and 412; note: beams as paths from an RIS 204 and including the beams from the gNB 180/202; paras. 74, 79 and 104; paras. 125 and 129-134; note: joint beam quality metric report for a preferred beam path), transmit, to the network entity, a first indication of the one or more properties (Haghighat, step 506; para. 144, especially the first sentence), a second indication of one or more preferred paths among the candidate paths (Haghighat, para. 144, especially the first sentence), or a combination thereof.
However, the embodiment of Haghighat fails to disclose the apparatus to communicate with the first wireless node via the at least one path. In another embodiment, Haghighat discloses communicating with a best or preferred beam (fig. 5, steps 504 and 508; para. 145, especially the third and fourth sentences). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to communicate with the first wireless node via the at least one path in the embodiment of Haghighat. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, optimizing communication over a wireless channel as is known in the art (Haghighat, paras. 134, last sentence, and para. 145; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Haghighat fails to disclose the paths between the apparatus and a first wireless node are through two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces, wherein the two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces are positioned at different locations relative to at least one of the apparatus of the first wireless node, and wherein value of the measured properties differ among the candidate paths formed through the two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces. Li discloses two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces used to optimize transmission (fig. 3; paras. 6-7 and 9; note: surfaces in locations that are indoors, outdoors, fixed and/or movable. paras. 44 and 65; paras. 54, 71 and 74 (especially the last sentence) and Baligh discloses measurements of two or more reflecting surfaces (figs. 4A, items 445a and 445b, and fig. 5; para. 323, and para. 324, especially the second and fourth sentences; note: CQI of an RIS). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the paths between the apparatus and a first wireless node through two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces, wherein the two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces are positioned at different locations relative to at least one of the apparatus of the first wireless node, and wherein value of the measured properties differ among the candidate paths formed through the two or more intelligent reflecting surfaces in the invention of Haghighat. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, allowing a best reflecting surface (or best reflecting location) to be used for communication as is known in the art (Li, fig. 3 and paras. 6-7, 9, 44, 54, 65 and 74 (especially the last sentence); Baligh, figs. 4A and 5, and paras. 323-323; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 17, Haghighat in view of Li teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to determine the one or more preferred paths based at least in part on one or more criteria associated with the candidate paths (Haghighat, paras. 140-145; note: best path (beam) based on delay and RSRP; Li, fig. 3 and paras. 67, 71 and 74; Baligh, paras. 323-324).
Regarding claims 18-24, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 2, 9-10 and 12-15, respectively.
Regarding claims 25-30, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1-2, 5 and 16-18, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s personal fax number is 571-273-3166 and the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights