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 .
Claims Status and Response to Arguments
Claims 1-10 and 18-21 have been cancelled. With respect to claim 11-17, Applicant’s arguments, filed on 4/12/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection of claims 11-17 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection of claims 11-17 is made in view of newly discovered prior art reference, Echigo et al (WO 2022/239079), as described below. In addition, newly added claims 22-34 are also rejected as described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28, 30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Medra et al (US 2025/0047328 A1) (herein after Medra).
Regarding claim 28, Medra teaches a method of operating first device (UE 502) to communicate with a second device (access point 501) via a third device (reconfigurable intelligent surface RIS 503) having a set of signal beams formable by antenna elements on the RIS. User device (502) outputs sensor data (Medra teaches using sensors at UE to provide UE parameter information including UE’s velocity, UE’s movement, UE’s location, interference at UE, SNR at UE, etc. at para [150] & [25]); and controls, using a transmitter, the RIS to sweep over a set of tracking beams while reflecting the radio-frequency signals transmitted by the wireless access point, the set of tracking beams including one or more of the signal beams from the set of signal beams selected based on the sensor data (Medra teaches that UE may select beams in RIS in lines 26-34 of para [144] and may modify/select refined/new beam sweeping in RIS in lines 8-14 of para [148] by sending UE information and beam parameters in para [33]).
Regarding claim 30, Medra further teaches UE’s sensor generating wireless performance metric data based on the radio-frequency signals received by the antenna array (Medra teaches that UE generates signal to noise ratio SNR and interference measurements based on received signals in para [25]). Thus, UE 502 would receive signals transmitted by the second device (access point 501) and measures the wireless performance metric data based on the radio-frequency signals.
Regarding claim 34, Medra teaches UE 502 (first device) and wireless access point 501 (second device) (see figure 5).
Claim Rejection – 103 Rejection
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 11, 12, 14, 22, 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medra et al (US 2025/0047328 A1) in view of Echigo et al (WO 2022/239079) (hereinafter Echigo).
Regarding claims 11, Medra et al. teaches a user equipment device (502) configured to communicate with a wireless access point (501) via a reconfigurable intelligent surface RIS (503) having a set of signal beams formable by antenna elements on the RIS, the UE device comprising a sensor configured to generate sensor data (Medra teaches using sensors at UE to provide UE parameter information including UE’s velocity, UE’s movement, UE’s location, interference at UE, SNR at UE, etc. at para [150] & [25]); and a transmitter configured to control the RIS to sweep over a set of tracking beams while reflecting the radio-frequency signals transmitted by the wireless access point, the set of tracking beams including one or more of the signal beams from the set of signal beams selected based on the sensor data (Medra teaches that UE may select beams in RIS in lines 26-34 of para [144] and may modify/select refined/new beam sweeping in RIS in lines 8-14 of para [148] by sending UE information and beam parameters in para [33]).
Medra does not teach that the set of tracking beams is selected in response to an expiration of a periodic timer. However, Echigo teaches that selected beams may be used only until a predetermined condition is met. One of the predetermined conditions is time expiration for selected beams. For example, selected beams may be used until a given time elapses. This means that when the time expires, the previously selected beams can’t be used anymore and new beams have to be selected again (See proposal 5). This mechanism enables the selection of beams based on latest information/conditions and thereby enhancing effectiveness and efficiency of beams.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Echigo’s teaching of time expiration for beams in Medra’s system with the motivation being to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of beams.
Regarding claim 12, Medra further teaches UE’s sensor generating wireless performance metric data based on the radio-frequency signals received by the antenna array (Medra teaches that UE generates signal to noise ratio SNR and interference measurements based on received signals in para [25]).
Regarding claim 14, Medra further teaches that one of the parameters for configuring RIS for selecting beams is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) calculated at the UE (see par [25]). Thus, when the SNR, measured at UE, falls below a SNR threshold, such info can be used by the RIS to select beams.
Regarding claim 22, Medra teaches a method of operating a user device (502) to communicate with a wireless access point (501) via a reconfigurable intelligent surface RIS (503) having a set of signal beams formable by antenna elements on the RIS. User device (502) outputs sensor data (Medra teaches using sensors at UE to provide UE parameter information including UE’s velocity, UE’s movement, UE’s location, interference at UE, SNR at UE, etc. at para [150] & [25]); and controls, using a transmitter, the RIS to sweep over a set of tracking beams while reflecting the radio-frequency signals transmitted by the wireless access point, the set of tracking beams including one or more of the signal beams from the set of signal beams selected based on the sensor data (Medra teaches that UE may select beams in RIS in lines 26-34 of para [144] and may modify/select refined/new beam sweeping in RIS in lines 8-14 of para [148] by sending UE information and beam parameters in para [33]).
Medra does not teach that the set of tracking beams is selected in response to an expiration of a periodic timer. However, Echigo teaches that selected beams may be used only until a predetermined condition is met. One of the predetermined conditions is time expiration for selected beams. For example, selected beams may be used until a given time elapses. This means that when the time expires, the previously selected beams can’t be used anymore and new beams have to be selected again (See proposal 5). This mechanism enables the selection of beams based on latest information/conditions and thereby enhancing effectiveness and efficiency of beams.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Echigo’s teaching of time expiration for beams in Medra’s system with the motivation being to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of beams.
Regarding claim 23, Medra further teaches UE’s sensor generating wireless performance metric data based on the radio-frequency signals received by the antenna array (Medra teaches that UE generates signal to noise ratio SNR and interference measurements based on received signals in para [25]).
Regarding claim 29, Medra does not teach that the set of tracking beams is selected in response to an expiration of a periodic timer. However, Echigo teaches that selected beams may be used only until a predetermined condition is met. One of the predetermined conditions is time expiration for selected beams. For example, selected beams may be used until a given time elapses. This means that when the time expires, the previously selected beams can’t be used anymore and new beams have to be selected again (See proposal 5). This mechanism enables the selection of beams based on latest information/conditions and thereby enhancing effectiveness and efficiency of beams. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Echigo’s teaching of time expiration for beams in Medra’s system with the motivation being to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of beams.
Claims 13, 17, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medra et al (US 2025/0047328 A1) in view of Echigo et al (WO 2022/239079) and Sahraei et al (US 20240396589 A1) (herein after Sahraei ‘589).
Regarding claims 17 and 27, Medra in view of Echigo does not teach the use of high frequencies over 100Ghz or ultrawideband for communications with the UE. However, it is well known in the art that communication techniques using higher frequencies can carry more information, offer higher bit rates and would expand the bandwidth capacity compared to communications using frequencies at lower ranges. For example, Sahraei 589, in similar field, teaches those high frequencies over 100Ghz (see par [74]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sahraei 589’s teaching of using RAT with high frequencies over 100Ghz or ultrawideband for communications with the UE in the system of Medra in view of Echigo with the motivation being to carry more information, offer higher bit rates and expand bandwidth range.
Regarding claims 13 and 24, Medra in view of Echigo does not teach comparing a UE’s measurement to a threshold to select certain set of beams. For example, if the threshold is exceeded, then the first set of beams is selected and if the threshold is not exceeded, then a second set of beams is selected instead. However, Sharaei 589 teaches that the measured parameters from UE can be used to compare to a threshold to select a suitable set of beams to reduce interference and improve performance (see par [103, 135, 103, 19]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sahraei 589’s teaching of using the measured parameters from UE to select a suitable set of beams RAT in the system of Medra in view of Echigo with the motivation being to reduce interference and improve performance.
Claims 15, 16, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medra et al (US 2025/0047328 A1) in view of Echigo et al (WO 2022/239079) and Baligh et al (US 20230308140 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Medra in view of Echigo does not teach the use of camera at the UE. However, Baligh, in similar field, teaches the use of camera at the UE for detecting the presence of RIS device to improve communications (see par [174]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Baligh et al.’s teaching of using camera at the UE for detecting the presence of RIS device in the system of Medra in view of Echigo with the motivation being to improve communications.
Regarding claims 16 and 26, Medra in view of Echigo does not teach the use of lidar sensor the UE. However, Baligh, in similar field, teaches the use of lidar sensor at the UE for detecting the presence of RIS device to improve communications (see par [174]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Baligh et al.’s teaching of using lidar sensor at the UE for detecting the presence of RIS device in the system of Medra in view of Echigo with the motivation being to improve communications.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medra et al (US 2025/0047328 A1) in view of Echigo et al (WO 2022/239079) and Baligh et al (US 20230308140 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Medra does not teach the use of camera at the UE. However, Baligh, in similar field, teaches the use of camera at the UE for detecting the presence of RIS device to improve communications (see par [174]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Baligh et al.’s teaching of using camera at the UE for detecting the presence of RIS device in Medra’s system with the motivation being to improve communications.
Regarding claim 32, Medra does not teach the use of lidar sensor the UE. However, Baligh, in similar field, teaches the use of lidar sensor at the UE for detecting the presence of RIS device to improve communications (see par [174]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Baligh et al.’s teaching of using lidar sensor at the UE for detecting the presence of RIS device in the Medra’s system with the motivation being to improve communications.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medra et al (US 2025/0047328 A1) in view of Sahraei et al (US 20240396589 A1) (herein after Sahraei ‘589).
Regarding claim 33, Medra does not teach the use of high frequencies over 100Ghz or ultrawideband for communications with the UE. However, it is well known in the art that communication techniques using higher frequencies can carry more information, offer higher bit rates and would expand the bandwidth capacity compared to communications using frequencies at lower ranges. For example, Sahraei 589, in similar field, teaches those high frequencies over 100Ghz (see par [74]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sahraei 589’s teaching of using RAT with high frequencies over 100Ghz or ultrawideband for communications with the UE in the system of Medra with the motivation being to carry more information, offer higher bit rates and expand bandwidth range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY D VU whose telephone number is (571)272-3155. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00a-to 5:00p Mon-Thurs.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571)272-0734. 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.
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights