DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant arguments/remarks received 02/17/2026.
2. Claims 1 - 30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims filed on 02/17/2026 necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. The newly amended limitations to the independent claims, changed the scope of the claims and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is being made. See the new claim rejection presented below.
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 9 – 12, 17 – 19 and 24 – 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saily et al. (US 2024/0163840 A1) in view of Yang et al. (Multi-antenna Wireless Energy Transfer for Backscatter Communication Systems, 2015) and Ying et al. (CN 119316927 A).
Regarding claim 1, Saily discloses: A method of operating a communication device [such method can be seen in figures 2 - 4], the method comprising:
receiving a reference signal from a communication station, wherein the reference signal is based on a reference component carrier [¶ 0091: PRS (reference signal) is sent from a given UE to TAG1 via a particular frequency (interpreted as a component carrier)];
generating one or more control signals based on one or more keying signals, the one or more keying signals having respective one or more keying frequencies; and [¶ 0090: the back scattering tag is able to change the coefficient of the antenna and frequency of the incoming signal (such triggering at the tag implies a control signal) based on the offset (shift) in frequency. The one or more keying frequency being a frequency derived from an offset or shift in order to change the frequency of the incoming signal see the last few lines of ¶ 0043]
transmitting a backscattered signal based on the reference signal and the one or more control signals, [¶ 0090 - ¶ 0091 and ¶ 0043: this shifted signal as seen in the explanation above is used by the tag for transmission of the backscattering signal. See also ¶ 0063. In other words: The back scattering signal is being produced based on the PRS received (¶ 0063 (latter half) and ¶ 0043 and ¶ 0091) and control signal described initiated in ¶ 0091] wherein the backscattered signal is based on one or more pairs of component carriers that correspond to the reference component carrier shifted by the one or more keying frequencies. [¶ 0091 and latter half of ¶ 0063, the back scatter node shifts the frequency to f2 and reflects the signal. The shifted frequency is from the original frequency or in this case interpreted as the reference component carrier].
Saily discloses every aspect of claim 1, except: wherein the backscattered signal is based on one or more pairs of component carriers comprising at least a first component carrier and a second component carrier that correspond to the reference component carrier, wherein the first component carrier and the second component carrier are each shifted by within a same frequency band in accordance with the respective one or more keying frequencies. However such difference is seen in the reference of Yang, see page 2977, left column (lines 15 - 16) “… since the frequency of the backscattered signal is intentionally shifted from the carrier frequency in practice5…”, note there is a superscript of “5” which is explained at the bottom of page 2977, left column which states “…5For channel estimation, the tag can change its antenna load impedance at some small frequency _f . The spectrum of the backscattered pilot signal thus has much of its energy in peaks displaced Δf Hz from the carrier frequency. After down conversion, the SI will mix to direct current (DC) and create offsets that can be easily filtered.”. The back scattering signal which is based on the reference signal (pilot) can be shifted from the carrier frequency at multiple Δf Hz of its energy peak. The shifted frequencies must be in the same band since they are shifted delta units from the carrier frequency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saily’s system in view of Yang. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for undesired signal (i.e., SI) be perfectly removed [see page 2977 left column of Yang].
Saily in view of Yang does not disclose: a pair of component carriers, but as seen above the Yang discloses at least multiple shifts from the carrier frequency can be carried out pertaining to the back scattering pilot signal, to cure the deficiency of which the shift involves a pair of component carriers from the reference component carrier the reference of Ying et al. (see the translated document), see page 32 in view of figures 17 - 21. Page 32 recites the following:
“As shown in FIG. 17, the network side transmits a carrier frequency with a frequency point of f0 (i.e., the first positioning reference signal), as shown in FIG. 18 and FIG. 19, the tag side modulates the carrier frequency to obtain a modulated signal (i.e., the second positioning reference signal), wherein the reflected scattering modulation frequency used is f1. the reverse scattering modulation frequency f1 is indicated to the tag side by the network side in advance. The frequency spectrum in FIG. 18 and FIG. 19 is a schematic diagram illustrating the frequency shift, and the carrier frequency signal is shifted from f0 to f0 + f1 and f0-f1. It should be noted that the modulated signal has two forms: As shown in FIG. 18, there is a certain bandwidth in the signal after frequency-shifting, and as shown in FIG. 19, the signal after frequency-shifting is still an impulse signal.”.
In other words, based on a reference signal and control signal the backscattering tag will modulate its transmission on two carriers that occurs in pairs from a shifted carrier frequency (reference component carrier) in the same band.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saily’s system in view of Yang and Ying. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to resist the fading influence of different frequency points caused by the channel or multiple frequency points [see page 35, 2nd paragraph].
Claims 9, 17 and 24 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1. Such element as one or more processor, transceivers and memories are disclosed by Saily, see figure 14. Independent claims 9 and 24 involves a position procedure is being involved in view of the backscattering signal. This limitation is accounted for in ¶ 0044 of Saily.
Regarding claim 2, Saily further discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting the backscattered signal comprises adjusting an impedance of an antenna of the communication device based on the one or more control signals such that the backscattered signal is transmitted based on an interaction between the reference signal and the impedance of the antenna. [¶ 0063 in combination with ¶ 0090. See also Yang, superscript 5 at the bottom of page 2977, left column].
Claims 10, 18 and 25 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Saily further discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the reference signal comprises a positioning reference signal (PRS), a sidelink positioning reference signal (SL-PRS), or a sounding reference signal (SRS). [¶ 0091 and the latter half of ¶ 0063, PRS being the reference signal used].
Claims 11, 19 and 26 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Saily and James further disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein: each component carrier of the one or more pairs of component carriers has the same bandwidth as that of the reference component carrier. [¶ 0090; also see figure 3 on page 4016 (2nd page) of the secondary reference of James, that is the shifted pair of carriers from reference carrier Fcw possess the same bandwidth (Fcw-f and Fcw+f)].
Claims 12 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 5 – 8, 13 – 16, 20 – 23 and 27 - 30 are 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 well as overcoming all rejection(s)/objection(s) set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights