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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues that Medra does not transmit an instruction to RIS that configures the RIS to sweep the array of antenna elements over a tracking beam set because Medra performs the beam sweeping and refinement at 510 which occurs prior to the transmission of UE information 515. However, the 510 operation is just the initial beam sweeping, Medra teaches that UE (502) provides information (beam parameters) to RIS for refined beam sweeping (see in lines 8-14 of paragraph [0148]).
Second, applicant argues that that Medra does not teach performing a sweep of beams on RIS 503 based on the UE information. However, Medra does teach performing a sweep of beams on RIS 503 based on the UE information (see in lines 8-14 of paragraph [0148]).
Third, applicant argues that Medra’s 502 does not control the seam sweep or beam selection of RIS 503. It is clear from above that Medra teaches that UE (502) provides information (beam parameters) to RIS for refined beam sweeping (see in lines 8-14 of paragraph [0148]). Medra further teaches that in lines 26-34 of paragraph [0144] that selection of beams is determined by the transmitter (BS) or the receiver (UE) and when the UE selects the beam, the UE may provide relevant info to the RIS.
Claim Rejection – 102 Rejection
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 11, 12 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Medra et al (US 2025/0047328 A1).
Regarding claims 11 & 19, 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 an antenna array (see para [131]) configured to receive radio-frequency signals transmitted by the wireless access point and reflected off the RIS; a sensor configured to generate sensor data (Medra teaches 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]).
Regarding claim 12, Medra et al 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 1, Medra et al teaches a method of operating a user equipment (UE) device (502) to communicate with a wireless access point (501) via a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) (503), the RIS having a first array of antenna elements (604), the RIS having a set of signal beams formable by the first array of antenna elements, the UE device including a second array of antenna elements (par [131]), and the method comprising: generating sensor data at a sensor (UE generates UE information in para [25]); transmitting, using a transmitter, an instruction to the RIS that configures the RIS to sweep the first array of antenna elements over a tracking beam set that is selected based on the sensor data (UE transmit UE info and beam info to RIS which reflects to BS 501 who then uses the info to instruct beam sweeping/beam selection at RIS in para [144], [148], [150] & [33]), the tracking beam set including a subset of the signal beams in the set of signal beams formable by the first array of antenna elements; receiving, using the second array of antenna elements, radio-frequency signals that have reflected off the RIS while the RIS sweeps the first array of antenna elements over the tracking beam set; and generating, at one or more processors, wireless performance metric data based on the radio-frequency signals received by the second array of antenna elements (Medra teaches that UE generates signal to noise ratio SNR and interference measurements based on received signals in para [25]).
Regarding claim 2, Medra et al further teaches controlling, with the transmitter, the RIS to program the first array of antenna elements to form a serving beam, the serving beam being selected from the set of signal beams based on the wireless performance metric data (par [155-157]); and conveying, using the second array of elements (UE using antenna array to transmit uplink to BS via RIS’s reflection), wireless data with the wireless access point via reflection off the RIS while the first array of antenna elements is programmed to form the serving beam (RIS is programmed to form serving beam for downlink transmission from BS to UE). It is clear to one skilled in the art that uplink and downlink communications can take place at the same time in Medra’s communications system.
Regarding claim 6, Medra et al further teaches that UE generate UE’s movement info to send to BS via RIS (par [25]).
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 3, 5, 7, 10, 13 and 17 are 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 claims 3, 5 and 17, 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 that 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Medra et al 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 Medra’s system with the motivation being to reduce interference and improve performance.
Regarding claim 10, Medra does not teach generating the sensor data comprises assigning a confidence level to the sensor data, the tracking beam set including a first number of signal beams from the set of signal beams when the sensor data is assigned a first confidence level, and the tracking beam set including a second number of signal beams from the set of signal beams that is greater than the first number of signal beams when the sensor data is assigned a second confidence level that is less than the first confidence level. However, Sahraei 589 teaches sensing the level of correlation and number of strong beams and using the sensed info to select the appropriate beam set size (see par [92]), thereby achiving an efficient, effective resource management. 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 sensing the level of correlation and number of strong beams and using the sensed info to select the beam set size in Medra’s system with the motivation being to improve resource management and communication quality.
Claim 4 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 20240364434 A1) (herein after Sahraei ‘434).
Regarding claim 4, Medra does not explicitly teach that the downlink radio access technology RAT the UE uses for receiving transmission from the RIS is different from the RAT that the UE used to transmit the BS via the RIS. However, Saharei 434 teaches that BS can communicate with UE using different radio access technologies including 3G, 4G, 5G & 6G, LTE, NR, etc. (see par [33, 34]). The flexibility allows the UE to communicate efficiently to the BS under different conditions, terrain, geographical location, needs and over different networks. Thus, different BSs (or cells) can utilize different RATs for as needed for their communications with the UEs. Sahraei 434 further teaches that while the serving cell (BS) can communicate with a served UE using any RAT and that the RIS can also reflect interfering signals from a non-serving cell (non-serving BS) to the served UE such that the reflected interfering signal adds destructively with the interfering signal received by the served UE on a direct channel between the non-serving cell and the served UE, thereby reducing interference (see par [60]). Since the non-serving cell does not have to use the same RAT as the serving cell for communication, 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 434’s teaching of a UE using a RAT to transmit control signals uplink to a serving BS and receiving reflected interfering signals from a non-serving cell with a different RAT via the RIS in Medra’s system with the motivation being to reduce signal interference.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medra et al (US 2025/0047328 A1) in view of Dennis et al (US 20210384958 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Medra does not teach sensing UE’s position and selecting/tracking beams toward at or near UE’s position to improve communications performance with UE. However, Dennis et al, in similar field, teaches using UE’s position to optimize the beam direction/width of reflected waves in the user equipment UE direction, so as to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) while limiting inter-path interference (see par [155]). 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 Dennis et al.’s teaching of using UE’s position to optimize the beam direction/width of reflected waves in the user equipment UE direction, in the system of Medra with the motivation being to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) while limiting inter-path interference.
Regarding claim 9, Medra does not teach that the tracking beam set is selected based on a current location of the UE device identified by the sensor data and based on a prior signal beam from the set of signal beams that was used by the RIS while the UE device was previously at the current location. However, Dennis et al, in similar field, teaches using UE’s position to optimize the beam direction/width of reflected waves in the user equipment UE direction, so as to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) while limiting inter-path interference (see par [155]). Furthermore, in the case when the UE has not moved for a period of time, the prior signal beam set and the current signal beam set is the same set. 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 Dennis et al.’s teaching of using UE’s position to optimize the beam direction/width of reflected waves in the user equipment UE direction, in the system of Medra with the motivation being to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) while limiting inter-path interference.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medra et al (US 2025/0047328 A1) in view of Baligh et al (US 20230308140 A1).
Regarding claim 15, 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 ao 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 16, Medra does not teach the use of camera at 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 Medra’s system with the motivation being to improve communications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HUY D VU whose telephone number is (571)272-3155. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-F.
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, James Kramer can be reached at (571)272-6783. 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