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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al US 11463151 B2 in view of Jia et al “High-resolution Surface-Assisted MmWave Communication” (cited by applicant).
Consider claim 1. Bengtsson et al teaches a method of operating a relaying device (base station 20) the RRD being reconfigurable to provide multiple spatial filters (col 8, line 55) each one of the multiple spatial filters being associated with a respective input spatial direction from which incident signals (112A, 112B) are accepted and with a respective output spatial direction into which the incident signals are output (301, 302, 303), the RRD supporting communication between a first communication node (caller not shown) and a second (callee 30, 40 and 50), the method comprising: configuring a first spatial filter to forward one or more first signals (301) using a first polarization into a first output spatial direction, and contemporaneously to said configuring the first spatial filter: configuring one or more second spatial filters (23 and col 8, lines 61-67) to forward one or more second signals (302) using a second polarization into one or more second output spatial directions, wherein the one or more second signals comprise one or more reference signals (see col 11, line 19), wherein the one or more second output spatial directions are at least partially different than the first output spatial direction (see claim 1 and fig 1). Bengtsson fails to teach the antenna structure and functions being used in a reconfigurable relay device RRD as known in the art. However, Jia et al from the same field of endeavor, teaches a reconfigurable relaying device (IRS) between a base station (BS) and a user (UE) comprising training sequences (reference signals) in a two-step process to adjust the proper phase and amplitude to maximize the reflected signal. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the antenna structure in Bengtsson to increase the coverage area thus saving the cost of additional base stations.
4. For claim 2, Bengtsson (col 3, lines 17-19 where the reference signal (col 3, lines 22-23) is part of the sweep) teaches wherein the one or more second spatial filters comprises multiple second spatial filters that are swept.
5. For claim 3, Bengtsson (see Bengtsson col 13, lines 1-19) teaches the multiple second spatial filters are swept in accordance with a timing of the one or more reference signals.
6. For claim 4, Bengtsson (see claim1 and 301 in Bengtsson) teaches obtaining configuration information from the first CN determined based on the one or more reference signals (col 3, lines 22-23), and configuring a third spatial filter to reflect one or more further signals (see Bengtsson col 13, lines 1-19) based on the configuration information.
7. For claim 5, Bengtsson (see Bengtsson 801 in Fig 5 and corresponding description in col 14, lines 1-25) teaches wherein the one or more second spatial filters are selectively configured when the RRD operates in a channel sounding mode.
8. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al US 11463151 B2 in view of Jia et al “High-resolution Surface-Assisted MmWave Communication” (cited by applicant) further in view of Lee et al US 2018/0091212 A1.
9. Consider claims 6 and 7. The combination fails to teach wherein the RRD operates in the channel sounding mode during repetitive channel sounding time gaps. However, repeating channel sounding/beam sweeping during gaps is well known in the art as taught by Lee (See (0107), fig 4, (0114), (0166), (0190), (0257)) and would follow that the third signal (301) as taught by Bengtsson would follow the same logic as call for in claim 7. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Lee et al in the combination to allow for smoother switching.
10. Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al US 11463151 B2 in view of Jia et al “High-resolution Surface-Assisted MmWave Communication” (cited by applicant) further in view of de Sana et al IRS-Assisted Massive Mimo-Nona networks: Exploiting Wave polarization.
11. Consider claims 8 and 15, the combination of Bengtsson and Jia fails to explicitly state wherein the one or more first signals and the one or more second signalsmultiplex as taught by de Sana in the combination to compensate for interference between multiple signals.
12. For claim 9, Bengtsson teaches (see 601-603 in fig 2) obtaining feedback associated with the one or more reference signals from the second CN, and based on the feedback, providing configuration information to the RRD for (configuring col 13, lines 1-19) at least one spatial filter of the multiple spatial filters for one or more further signals.
13. For claim 10, Bengtsson teaches communicating polarization information between the first CN and the RRD, the polarization information (reads on downlink signal in col 10, lines 1-8) being indicative of the first polarization and the second polarization.
14. For claim 11, Bengtsson teaches communicating resource information between the first CN and the RRD, the resource information being indicative a timing of the one or more reference signals and/or of time-frequency resources allocated to the one or more reference signals (see col 10, lines 1-8).
15. For claim 12, Bengtsson teaches wherein the one or more reference signals are selectively transmitted when the RRD operates in a channel sounding mode (see Bengtsson 801 in Fig 5 and corresponding description in col 14, lines 17-20).
16. For claim 13, Bengtsson teaches wherein the RRD operates in the channel sounding mode in accordance with at least one of a predefined timing, an activation message communicated between the RRD and the first CN, or a deactivation message communicated between the RRD and the first CN (see col 11, lines 22-37 where it is activated by for example highest received power).
17. For claim 14, Bengtsson teaches communicating, from the RRD.
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Valdes Garcia et al US 2023/0074376 A1 teaches (fig.3) is an illustration 300 of a dual-polarization phased array antenna in a TX mode, consistent with an illustrative embodiment. An H-pol 310 and a V-pol 315 are shown in FIG. 3. The dual-pol TX mode is different than the single pole shown in FIG. 1A because there are two groups of digital basebands and DACs 305, 307 with a respective V polarization and H polarization. There is a single FCIC 320 that performs the frequency conversion and power combining for each of the H-pol 310 and V-pole portion 315. There are two pairs of bandpass filters 330,335 (one pair for the V-pol and one pair for the H-pol, two pairs of power splitters 340, 345, a group of beamformers 350 for each pol, and an antenna array substrate 360 in which each antenna supports two polarizations has two corresponding input ports. Tx beams 1 and 2 have different orientations, as well as two different frequencies and H-polarization. Tx beams 3 and 4 have different orientations as well as different frequencies and V-polarization.
19. Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments are not directed to the claim subject matter. In the second paragraph of page 8, the applicant argues that the first spatial filter, associated with V-POL, for continuous communication of data signals while at the same time the second spatial filter, associated with H-POL, can be swept. That is not apparent in the independent claims. The claims only state different polarizations. The independent claims use the term “contemporaneously” which by definition means the same time or “the same period of time”. The claims merely recite a first polarization and second polarization which is clearly taught by Bengtsson (see abstract). The applicant implies (top of page 8) that the signals are sent at the same time, with different polarization, into “one or more special directions” (bottom of page 7) which broadly could be “one” (i.e. same) direction. However, that is not apparent in the claims. For example, independent claim 1 doesn’t even send signals, the filters are just “configured.” The applicant also lists multiple benefits (robust mobility for UEs for example in the middle of page 8, but those also are not specified in the claims.
20. 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 CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646