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 .
Interview Summary
Examiner contacted applicant representative Micha Adler asking to add limitation of claim 2 into all independent claims to overcome 35 USC 101 and to allow the application. However, no agreement was reached.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 28, 2025 has been entered.
Examiner Note
Applicant filed terminal disclaimer to overcome double patenting rejection on 08/19/2025 for application number 18/189, 951. However, examiner maintained double patenting rejection because the double patenting rejection was based on 18/191, 951 and 18/188, 416. Since the terminal disclaimer is filed for application number 18/189, 951, examiner will maintain double patenting rejection for application number 18/188, 416 till a new terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/188, 416
Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-30 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/188, 416. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in pending application are transparently found in U.S. Patent Application No. 18/188, 416 with obvious wording variation. For example, compare Claim 1 of pending application with claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/188, 416, they both recite
An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device, comprising (An apparatus for wireless communication at a network device, comprising):
a memory (a memory); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to (at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to):
receive a plurality of beamforming (claim 3, beamforming) reference signal transmissions associated with a corresponding plurality of configurations of a configurable array of reflective elements (obtain an indication of a characteristic distance associated with a configurable array of reflective elements which can be refer to as receiving a plurality of reference signal transmissions associated with a corresponding plurality of configurations of a configurable array of reflective elements); and
transmit, via the at least one trainseiver (claim 16, transmitter device transmitting refer to as transmit, via the at least one trainseiver) and based on the plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions, information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements (provide a communication for a wireless device i.e., providing, based on the plurality of reference signal transmissions using a beam focusing configuration of the configurable array of reflective elements with a first focusing distance i.e., information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements based on the characteristic distance).
Further, analyzing and comparing dependent claims 2-10 of the pending application with claims 2-18 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/188, 416 it was found that they recite the same limitation with wording changes.
Similarly, analyzing and comparing independent claims 21 of the pending application including its dependent claims with claims 19 including its dependent claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/188, 416 it was found that they recite the same limitation with wording changes.
Note the issued claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/188, 416 are similar in scope such that the claimed limitations as recited in pending application are encompassed by U.S. Patent Application No. 18/188, 416.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 3-21, 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 1, 3-21, 23-30 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1,11, 21 and 27 recites limitation, for example claim 1 and 21 recites “receive a plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions associated with a corresponding plurality of beamformed configurations of a configurable array of reflective elements; and transmit, via the at least one transceiver and based on the plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions, information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements” and claim 11 and 27 recites “transmit, or configure a configurable array of reflective elements to reflect, a plurality of reference signal transmissions associated with a corresponding plurality of configurations beamforming of a configurable array of reflective elements; and receive, via at least one transceiver and based on the plurality of reference signal transmissions, information indicating an estimated distance from a wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. For example, 1 and 21 recites “receive a plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions; and transmit, based on the plurality of reference signal transmissions, information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements” and claim 11 and 27 recites “transmit a plurality of reference signal transmissions; and receive based on the plurality of reference signal transmissions”. The receiving step and providing step based on received plurality of reference signal transmission indicating estimate distance in claim 1 and 21 and providing and obtaining step based on the plurality of reference signal transmission indicating estimate distance in claim 11 and 27 recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of transmitting and receiving, etc. as disclosed in MPEP Sec 2106.05 (a) improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, 2106.05 (c) particular transmformation, and 2106.05 (f) (1), whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
However, if applicant add limitation from claim 2 or 22 into all independent claims it will overcome the rejection.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-15, 17-19, 23, 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao Wang Near-Field Beam Management in LIS-Assisted mmWave Systems dated 2021 in view of Walker et al. Pub. No. US 20240356625 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device (Fig. 1 LIS assisted mmWave system) comprising:
a memory; at least one transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to (Fig. 1 and Page 2 A Propogation Modeling Col 1Para 1, a LIS-assisted single-input single-output (SISO) mmWave system as shown in Fig. 1, which consists of an omnidirectional antenna base station (BS), a uniform linear array (ULA) LIS, and a single antenna user inherently has a memory; transceiver and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the memory, the at least one processor):
receive a plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions (Page 4 Col 1 Sec III A. Near-Field LIS Beam Searching Para 2 The user measures the received power corresponding to each beam i.e., beamformed and gives feedback indicating the received strongest beam i.e., receive a plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions) associated with a corresponding plurality of beamforming configurations of a configurable array of reflective elements (Fig. 1 and Page 2, A Propogation Modeling Col 1 Para 1, The mmWave link between the BS and the user is occluded, and a LIS is deployed to construct a path between the BS and the user. The LIS is placed on the x axis of the Cartesian coordinate system, and its geometric center coincides with the origin of the coordinates. N denotes the number of LIS units i.e., plurality of reference signal transmission associated with corresponding plurality of configuration of a configurable array of reflective element, and d denotes the size of each unit, which is of sub-wavelength scale within the range of λ/2, where λ denotes the carrier wavelength. Un denotes the n-th LIS unit whose programmable reflection coefficient is denoted as Γn. The center position of Un is ((n − 1 2 )d, 0), where n ∈ {1 − N 2 , ..., 0, ..., N 2 }, assuming that N is an even number).
Wang teaches based on the plurality of reference signal transmissions, information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective element (Fig. 1 and Page 2, A Propogation Modeling Col 1 Para 1, We use the symbols l t n , l r n , θ t n , θ r n to denote the distance between the BS and Un, the distance between the user and Un, the angle from Un to the BS, the angle from Un to the user i.e., information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective element) but does not specifically teach
transmit information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Walker teaches upon receiving multiple reflected/refracted/redirected RF signals, detects that the signal is sent via a RIS by determining which of the multiple reflected/refracted/redirected RF signals is the strongest reflected/refracted/redirected signal and/or determining the timing between the RF signals and/or estimate an angle/distance between the terminal and the reflected/refracted/redirected RF signal and/or by using the measured information/timings/angles/distances to correlate it with the (meta-) information stored about RISs in vicinity and/or its own location and/or orientation in order to find a RIS that (best) matches the measured information/timings/angles/distances. Upon determining a (best) matching RIS, the UE may use the (meta-)information of the RIS to further adjust its RF signals, in order to optimize the communication with the access device via the RIS. Further Walker also teaches that the UE may determine a close-by RIS based on its own location, and can send control/user plane data towards the RIS i.e., transmit information. This may also include initiating a ProSe/sidelink discovery of a close-by RIS. Upon reception of the UE data, the RIS might configure itself to steer the UE data towards the access device. To this end, the RIS should be able to obtain/detect/calculate itself the location of the UE, and the RIS has to know the desired reflection/refraction/redirection direction to reach the access device. The RIS might be able to do this by using ranging capabilities of the RIS UE, i.e., the RIS UE uses ranging to determine the distance/angle/relative position of the UE that wishes to communicate with the access device i.e., transmit, via the at least one transceiver and based on the plurality of beamformed reference signal transmission where the terminal may be triggered (e.g. based on a pre-configured policy to determine a threshold/condition for such trigger) to try to communicate via a RIS and steer its beam towards a RIS i.e., based on plurality of beamformed reference signal transmission, instead of using “direct” LOS communication/beamsteering between the terminal and the access device information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements (Para 358-359).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wang with the method of Walker so that the beam of the wireless communication path is correctly redirected to the terminal device (See Walker Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang teaches wherein to transmit the information indicating the estimated distance the at least one processor is configured to: transmit an indication of a set of received signal power measured for each of the plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions (Page 4 Col 1 Sec III A. Near-Field LIS Beam Searching Para 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang teaches wherein the information indicating the estimated distance is transmitted to at least one of a base station, a network node, or a controller of the configurable array of reflective elements (Fig. 1 and Page 2, A Propogation Modeling Col 2 Para 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive at least one signal via the configurable array of reflective elements in a configuration based on the information indicating the estimated distance (Fig. 1 and Page 2, A Propogation Modeling Col 1 Para 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang does not specifically teach wherein the configuration beam focusing configuration of the configuration array of reflective elements associated with steering a beam towards a direction and focusing the beam at a specific distance based on the estimated distance.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Walker teaches that After receiving a command from gNB (whereby the gNB providing the information about the end-user UEs (or the gNB forwarding the information from location service or other core network service) can also be seen as a command), the RIS may change its state (in particular the state of the reflective surface 270) so as to steer or focus the beam received from the gNB towards a particular end-user UE. This assumes that the RIS can collect the right information to be able to focus or steer the “reflected” beam on the particular end-user UE, as requested (in particular if the end-user UE is moving). If the RIS knows its own position (e.g. based on GPS module) and the position of the gNB and the position of the end-user UE it can calculate the angle to reflect/refract/redirect an incoming beam from the gNB towards the end-user UE, and modify its state accordingly. The gNB may provide the RIS with updates to the location information and/or angle between the RIS and the end-user and/or beam angle to use, if the end-user UE is moving, so that the RIS can update its state accordingly. Alternatively or additionally, if the RIS employs a RIS-UE 50 that supports sidelink, the RIS-UE 50 and the end-user UE 40 may perform ranging over sidelink (e.g. to calculate a distance and/or angle based on positioning reference signals transmitted over sidelink) and/or may perform other D2D measurements and/or LoS detection that the RIS may be doing with a particular end-user UE, e.g., using proximity services (ProSe) and/or vehicle to everything (V2X) sidelink (SL) communication. Based on this information, the RIS may determine the angle to reflect/refract/redirect an incoming beam from the gNB towards the end-user UE, and modify its state accordingly. The RIS may repeatedly perform such ranging/measurements over sidelink and modify its state accordingly when the end-user UE is moving i.e., the configuration beam focusing configuration of the configuration array of reflective elements associated with steering a beam towards a direction and focusing the beam at a specific distance based on the estimated distance (Para 298).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wang with the method of Walker so that the beam of the wireless communication path is correctly redirected to the terminal device (See Walker Abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang teaches wherein the configuration is associated with one of a beamforming operation or a beam focusing operation at the configurable array of reflective elements associated with steering a beam towards a direction without an associated focusing distance (Page 3, B From Far-Field to Near-Field Col 1 Para 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive configuration information relating to the plurality of reference signal transmissions associated with the corresponding plurality of configurations, wherein the configuration information comprises an indication of resources associated with each reference signal transmission in the plurality of reference signal transmissions and a corresponding configuration in the corresponding plurality of configurations (Page 4, A. Near-Field LIS Beam Searching Col 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang teaches wherein the configurable array of reflective elements is a reconfigurable intelligent surface (Page 1 Col 1, Introduction RIS)
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 18, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive the plurality of reference signal transmissions from a network node, wherein to provide the plurality of reference signal transmissions the at least one processor is configured to reflect the plurality of reference signal transmissions from the network node toward the wireless device with the corresponding plurality of configurations of the configurable array of reflective elements(Fig. 1 and Page 2, A Propogation Modeling Col 1 Para 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang teaches wherein the network device is at least a component of a base station and the configurable array of reflective elements is a reconfigurable intelligent surface, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit configuration information relating to the plurality of reference signal transmissions associated with the corresponding plurality of configurations, wherein the configuration information comprises an indication of resources associated with each reference signal transmission in the plurality of reference signal transmissions and a corresponding configuration in the corresponding plurality of configurations (Fig. 1 and Page 2, A Propagation Modeling Col 1-2 and also see (Page 4, A. Near-Field LIS Beam Searching Col 1)).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang teaches wherein the network device is at least a component of a base station, and wherein to provide the plurality of reference signal transmissions the at least one processor is configured to transmit the plurality of reference signal transmissions to the configurable array of reflective elements for reflection to the wireless device based on the corresponding plurality of configurations of the configurable array of reflective elements (Fig. 1 and Page 2, A Propagation Modeling Col 1-2).
Regarding Claim 21, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 25, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 26, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 27, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 28, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 29, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 8, 16, 22, 24 and 30 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 and overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference fail to teach the limitation of “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: measure a received signal power for each of the plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions; and determine an ordering of the plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions based on measurement of the received signal power for each of the plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions, wherein the information indicating the estimated distance is based on the ordering of the received signal power measured for each of the plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions and where in the information indicating the estimated distance comprises at least one of a first indication of the ordering, a second indication of the estimated distance based on the ordering or a third indication of an estimated range of distances based on the ordering” or “wherein the corresponding plurality of configurations is a first corresponding plurality of configurations comprising at least a first configuration using a first number of elements for a first beamforming operation and a second configuration using a second number of elements for a second beamforming operation, wherein the plurality of reference signal transmissions is a first plurality of reference signal transmission received during a first time period, wherein the information indicating the estimated distance is first information indicating a first range of distances, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, based on the first information and during a second time period, a second plurality of reference signal transmissions associated with a second corresponding plurality of configurations of the configurable array of reflective elements; and provide, based on the second plurality of reference signal transmissions, second information indicating a second range of distances from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements, wherein the second range of distances is included in, and narrower than, the first range of distances”. These limitation in combination of other element are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that applicant filed terminal disclaimer for US Patent No. 18/189, 951 and 18/188, 416 and it has been approved. Therefore, ODP rejection should be withdrawn. However, terminal disclaimer filed on 8/19/2025 reflect Application No. 18/189, 951 only. Therefore, ODP rejection is still maintained for Application No. 18/188, 416.
Applicant is arguing that by amending the claim to recite “receive a plurality of reference signal ….; and transmit, based on the plurality of reference signal transmission, information indicating a estimate distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements” defined in the claim cannot be considered mental processes and suggest that the above recited features of amended independent claim 1 (and the corresponding features of amended independent claim 21) involve a practical application directed to improving reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) assisted links, such as a link from a base station to a UE via a RIS. See, e.g., specification as originally filed, paragraph [0028]. However, examiner disagrees. MPEP clearly states that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")). (See MPEP 21-6.05 (f)). Therefore, just saying in the claim language “receive a plurality of reference signal transmissions associated with a corresponding plurality of configuration of a configurable array of reflective elements and transmit information indicating an estimated distance from a wireless device to a configurable array of reflective elements” without attempting to cover any solution or how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the receive and transmit. In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained. However, if applicant add limitation from claim 2 and 22 into all independent claims, it will overcome the rejection.
Applicant is further arguing that recited features of amended independent claim 11 (and the corresponding features of amended independent claim 27) involve a practical application directed to improving reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) assisted links for reasons similar to those previously discussed with respect to amended independent claims 1 and 21.
However, as explained above, the reason for rejecting independent claim 1 with 35 USC 101. Since other independent claims recite similar limitation as claim 1 with wording variation, therefore, rejection for other independent claims 11, 21 and 27 are also maintained based on same argument.
Applicant is arguing that Wang fail to teach all the feature of claim 1, 11, 21 and 27 and suggest that “receive a plurality of beamformed reference signal transmissions associated with a corresponding plurality of beamforming configurations of a configurable array of reflective elements; and transmit, via the at least one transceiver and based on the plurality of beam formed reference signal transmissions, information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements” and suggest that Wang fail to teach the above claimed limitation. However, examiner disagrees and would like to bring it to the attention of the applicant that during patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111. Further, examiner would like to bring it to the attention of the applicant that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Having said that Wang teaches from Fig. 1 LIS assisted mmWave system where the user measures the received power corresponding to each beam i.e., beamformed reference signal and gives feedback indicating the received strongest beam (Page 4 Col 1 Sec III A. Near-Field LIS Beam Searching Para 2). Wang teaches that the mmWave link between the BS and the user is occluded, and a LIS is deployed to construct a path between the BS and the user. The LIS is placed on the x axis of the Cartesian coordinate system, and its geometric center coincides with the origin of the coordinates. N denotes the number of LIS units i.e., plurality of reference signal transmission associated with corresponding plurality of configuration of a configurable array of reflective element, and d denotes the size of each unit, which is of sub-wavelength scale within the range of λ/2, where λ denotes the carrier wavelength. Un denotes the n-th LIS unit whose programmable reflection coefficient is denoted as Γn. The center position of Un is ((n − 1 2 )d, 0), where n ∈ {1 − N 2 , ..., 0, ..., N 2 }, assuming that N is an even number) i.e., plurality of configurations of a configurable array of reflective elements (Fig. 1 and Page 2, A Propogation Modeling Col 1 Para 1). Wang teaches that they use the symbols l t n , l r n , θ t n , θ r n to denote the distance between the BS and Un, the distance between the user and Un, the angle from Un to the BS, the angle from Un to the user i.e., information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective element) i.e., based on the plurality of reference signal transmissions, information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective element (Fig. 1 and Page 2, A Propogation Modeling Col 1 Para 1) but does not teach transmit information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements. To overcome this deficiency Walker teaches that the UE may determine a close-by RIS based on its own location, and can send control/user plane data towards the RIS i.e., transmit information. This may also include initiating a ProSe/sidelink discovery of a close-by RIS. Upon reception of the UE data, the RIS might configure itself to steer the UE data towards the access device. To this end, the RIS should be able to obtain/detect/calculate itself the location of the UE, and the RIS has to know the desired reflection/refraction/redirection direction to reach the access device. The RIS might be able to do this by using ranging capabilities of the RIS UE, i.e., the RIS UE uses ranging to determine the distance/angle/relative position of the UE that wishes to communicate with the access device i.e., transmit information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements (Para 359). For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing that in rejecting the feature relating to transmitting based on the plurality of reference signal transmission, information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements” and suggest that cited paragraph 358 and 359 does not teach allegedly disclose feature. However, examiner disagrees. Walker teaches that the UE may determine a close-by RIS based on its own location, and can send control/user plane data towards the RIS i.e., transmit information. This may also include initiating a ProSe/sidelink discovery of a close-by RIS. Upon reception of the UE data, the RIS might configure itself to steer the UE data towards the access device. To this end, the RIS should be able to obtain/detect/calculate itself the location of the UE, and the RIS has to know the desired reflection/refraction/redirection direction to reach the access device. The RIS might be able to do this by using ranging capabilities of the RIS UE, i.e., the RIS UE uses ranging to determine the distance/angle/relative position of the UE that wishes to communicate with the access device i.e., transmit, via the at least one transceiver and based on the plurality of beamformed reference signal transmission where the terminal may be triggered (e.g. based on a pre-configured policy to determine a threshold/condition for such trigger) to try to communicate via a RIS and steer its beam towards a RIS i.e., based on plurality of beamformed reference signal transmission, instead of using “direct” LOS communication/beamsteering between the terminal and the access device information indicating an estimated distance from the wireless device to the configurable array of reflective elements (Para 358-359). For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is further arguing that Wang and Walker alone or in their combination, fail to disclose or suggest the feature of independent claims and for those reasons, mutatis mutandis, presented above claim should be allowed. However, examiner disagrees and believe that Wang and Walker in combination teach applicant claimed invention and for those reasons, rejection should be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647