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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections over Official Notice
Applicant traverses the Office’s reliance on Official Notice. The examiner provides Choi (US 2022/0216908) in order to support this reliance.
Regarding claim 1, applicant asserts that:
“Applicant submits that Abedini does not disclose, teach, or in any way suggest the subject matter of claim 1 as amended. With reference to claim 2, features of which are generally included in amended claim 1, the Office cites to Abedini ( [0151]) for disclosing, "the apportioning including apportioning reflection-access to the node base station" (Office Action, p. 3). Claim 1 as amended, however, recites "apportioning APD reflection-access to the node base station for communicating over the wireless backhaul link using a surface of the APD." Abedini (paragraph [0151]) instead describes that wireless nodes "may be enabled to utilize the identifying information associated with the assisting node ... to make improved determinations regarding how or when to utilize the assisting node 715 for communications." The use of identifying information as described by Abedini is not apportioning APD reflection-access to the node base station. Abedini fails to disclose each and every element in amended claim 1.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Abedini discloses, at paragraph [0088], that an assisting node may be a reflecting intelligent surface IRS. In this instance, the reflecting intelligent surface IRS reads on the claimed “adaptive phase-changing device (APD)”. Abedini further discloses "apportioning APD reflection-access to the node base station for communicating over the wireless backhaul link using a surface of the APD." See paragraphs [0085], [0151], [0125], and [0126].
Regarding independent claim 12, dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-17, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims are proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-5, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abedini (US 2022/0109492).
As to claim 1, Abedini discloses a method performed by a first base station 710 (see paragraph [0129] which discloses that the wireless node 710 may be an IAB donor base station) for communicating over a wireless backhaul link with a node base station 720 (see paragraph [0129] which discloses that the wireless node 720 may be a base station), the method comprising: determining to include an adaptive phase-changing device (APD) 715 in a communication path for the wireless backhaul link (see paragraphs [0088], [0129] which disclose that an assisting node 510, 715 may be a reflecting intelligent surface (RIS)”; in this instance, the reflecting intelligent surface IRS reads on the claimed “adaptive phase-changing device (APD)”); apportioning APD reflection-access to the node base station for communicating over the wireless backhaul link using a surface of the APD 715 (see paragraphs [0085], [0125], [0126]); and communicating with the node base station 720 over the wireless backhaul link using a surface of the APD 715 and based on the apportioned APD reflection-access (see paragraphs [0085], [0125], [0126], [0150], [0151]).
As to claims 2, 13, Abedini discloses that the apportioning further comprises apportioning APD control-access to the node base station 720 (see paragraphs [0085], [0125], [0126], [0146]).
As to claim 3, Abedini discloses that the apportioning further comprises apportioning physical resources of an APD-control channel to the node base station 720 (see paragraphs [0135], [0151]).
As to claims 4, 14, Abedini discloses that the apportioning of the physical resources further comprises: apportioning the physical resources using at least one of: frequency-partitioning (see paragraph [0131]); time-partitioning (see paragraphs [0085], [0125], [0126], [0131], [0141]); ; or coding-scheme-partitioning.
As to claims 5, 16, Abedini discloses that the apportioning comprises: apportioning the reflection-access to the node base station 720 using at least one of: time-partitioning of APD-surface access (see paragraphs [0126], [0151]); or configurable-surface-element partitioning of APD-surface access (see paragraph [0146] which discloses “In some aspects, the first wireless node 710 and/or the second wireless node 720 may reconfigure the assisting node 715 to improve an end-to-end communication performance between the first wireless node 710 and the second wireless node 720.”).
As to claim 10, Abedini discloses that the apportioning further comprises: allocating, as the apportioned APD reflection-access, a first portion of the APD reflection-access to the first base station 710; and allocating, as the apportioned APD reflection-access, a second portion of the APD reflection-access to the node base station 720. See paragraphs [0126], [0146], [0150], [0151].
As to claim 11, Abedini discloses that allocating a portion of the apportioned APD reflection-access to access-link communications (see the access link 360 in figure 1); and communicating, based on the first portion of the APD reflection-access, with a user equipment (UE) (see legend “UE” in figure 1) by using the surface of the APD 510, 715, to exchange access-link wireless communications 360. See also paragraph [0129] which discloses that the second wireless node may further comprise UE.
As to claim 12, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1.
As to claim 15, Abedini discloses indicating a surface configuration to the APD using the apportioned control-access (see paragraphs [0126], [0146]); and indicating time information to the APD that specifies when to configure the surface of the APD using the surface configuration based on node-to-donor wireless communications (see paragraphs [0126], [0248]).
As to claim 17, Abedini discloses providing a second backhaul link 350 (see figure 3 which shows a base station communicates a second base station via a first backhaul link 350, and a another base station via a second backhaul link 350) to a second node base station based on the apportioned APD-access. See paragraph [0151] which discloses “As a result, the wireless nodes (e.g., the first wireless node 710 and/or the second wireless node 720) may be enabled to utilize the assisting node 715 to transmit or receive communications from another wireless node.”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Choi (US 2022/0216908).
As to claim 7, Abedini discloses that the apportioning of the APD-access to the node base station 720 comprises: determining to change a surface of the APD 715 based on the node base station 720 (see paragraph [0146]); determining a second surface configuration for the surface of the APD 715 based on the node base station 720 (see paragraph [0146]); directing the APD 715 to update the surface of the APD 715 using the second surface configuration (see paragraph [0146]). Abedini fails to disclose directing the APD to update a look-up-table or surface-configuration codebook with at least the second surface configuration. Choi discloses a reflecting intelligent surface, which updates a look-up-table with a new surface configuration (see paragraphs [0043], [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Choi to Abedini, in order to yield predictable results such as optimizing surface configuration processing time.
As to claim 8, Abedini discloses that the determining to change the surface of the APD 715 further comprises: identifying a channel impairment in the communication path for the wireless backhaul link; and determining to change the surface configuration based on identifying the channel impairment. See paragraph [0147].
As to claim 9, Abedini discloses that the determining of the second surface configuration for the surface of the APD 715 further comprises: performing a beam-sweeping procedure with the APD 715 and the node base station 720; and selecting the second surface configuration using the beam-sweeping procedure. See paragraph [0146].
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.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record fail to anticipate, or render obvious, that the apportioning of the APD-access to the node base station further comprises: indicating, to the APD, a node index from a codebook associated with the node base station.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zegrar (US 2023/0421412), Kim (US 2021/0126359) disclose portioning configurable reflecting surfaces.
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 NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646