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 Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 4/13/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex et al. “Alex” US 2014/0307816 in view of Zegrar et al. “Zegrar” US 2023/0421412.
Regarding claim 1, Alex teaches a base station comprising processing circuitry (Figures 1 and 3 show the processing circuitry within a base station) to:
generate a first-type pilot signal that is a normal signal and a plurality of second-type pilot signals (Figure 5 shows a plurality of pilot signals being mapped from an antenna port to the physical antenna for transmission; Paragraph 43. Further this illustration is used by a base station; Paragraph 42. The term “normal” has no meaning, thus any one signal can be viewed as normal),
multiply the first-type pilot signal by a first-type antenna weight and multiply the plurality of second-type pilot signals by a second-type antenna weight (the pilot signals are multiplied by respective weights of the antennas (Figure 5 and Paragraph 43). There are at least 4 pilots being processed thus reading on the first/second pilot signals being multiplied by antenna weights); and
a wireless transmitter configured to transmit the first-type pilot signal and the plurality of second-type pilot signals (these signals are then transmit; Paragraphs 43, 44, see also Figure 5 which shows the physical antennas).
Alex does not expressly disclose pilot signals that are used for determining a transmission method for communicating via RIS; however, Zegrar teaches pilot signals are associated with RIS and that there are different pilot sequences (i.e. more than one pilot); Paragraphs 112-113. Further, Zegrar teaches channel matrices between the RIS and the UE in which various signals, including pilot signals, are associated with; Paragraph 133. Thus one can see there are pilot signals used for communicating via RIS as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alex to include some pilots associated with RIS as taught by Zegrar.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can incorporate RIS which improves wireless communication performance as taught by Zegrar; Paragraph 4.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex in view of Zegrar in view of Yoshii et al. “Yoshii” US 2010/0260235.
Regarding claim 2, Alex does not expressly disclose generating the first pilot using a code sequence and generating the second pilots by cyclically shifting the code sequence; however, Yoshii teaches pilot signals are generated using sequence (i.e. first pilot using code sequence). Further, pilot sequences are cyclically shifted by codes before being transmit; Paragraphs 14-15).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alex to include the pilots are generated using code sequences and cyclically shifted code sequences as taught by Yoshii.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that more accurate channel estimations values can be calculated as taught by Yoshii; Paragraph 17.
Regarding claim 3, Alex does not expressly disclose generating the first pilot using a first type code sequence and generating the second pilots by cyclically shifting a second type code sequence; however, Yoshii teaches pilot signals are generated using sequence (i.e. first pilot using code sequence). Further, pilot sequences are cyclically shifted by codes before being transmit; Paragraphs 14-15. The first and second type code sequences are not defined and thus does not require them to be the same or different).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alex to include the pilots are generated using code sequences and cyclically shifted code sequences as taught by Yoshii.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that more accurate channel estimations values can be calculated as taught by Yoshii; Paragraph 17.
Regarding claim 4, Alex does not expressly disclose associating an amount of cyclic shift with details of signal processing performed by a device that receives the plurality of second type pilot signals; however, Yoshii teaches pilot signals are generated using sequence (i.e. first pilot using code sequence). Further, pilot sequences are cyclically shifted by codes before being transmit; Paragraphs 14-15. These signals are transmit and received by a receiving side; Paragraphs 12 and 16. The claim does not define what the amount of cyclic shift is nor if the shift changes. Further the claim does not define what “Details of signal processing are”. Broadly speaking, anything that occurs in a system is associated with everything else in a system. Because Yoshii teaches signal processing as well as cyclic shift, the claims stand properly rejected).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alex to include the amount of cyclic shift is associated with details of signal processing as taught by Yoshii.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that more accurate channel estimations values can be calculated as taught by Yoshii; Paragraph 17.
Regarding claim 5, Alex does not expressly disclose associating an amount of cyclic shift with details of signal processing performed by a device that receives the plurality of second type pilot signals; however, Yoshii teaches pilot signals are generated using sequence (i.e. first pilot using code sequence). Further, pilot sequences are cyclically shifted by codes before being transmit; Paragraphs 14-15. These signals are transmit and received by a receiving side; Paragraphs 12 and 16. The claim does not define what the amount of cyclic shift is nor if the shift changes. Further the claim does not define what “Details of signal processing are”. Broadly speaking, anything that occurs in a system is associated with everything else in a system. Because Yoshii teaches signal processing as well as cyclic shift, the claims stand properly rejected).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alex to include the amount of cyclic shift is associated with details of signal processing as taught by Yoshii.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that more accurate channel estimations values can be calculated as taught by Yoshii; Paragraph 17.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not disclose the device including a function of varying angle of reflection of received signals; however, Zegrar teaches the use of pilot sequences; Paragraph 113. Further, the system can employ reflective elements which can adjust the angle of reflection for signaling; Paragraph 20.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include varying angles of reflection as taught by Zegrar.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the wireless channel can be improved as taught by Zegrar; Paragraph 20.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not disclose the device including a function of varying angle of reflection of received signals; however, Zegrar teaches the use of pilot sequences; Paragraph 113. Further, the system can employ reflective elements which can adjust the angle of reflection for signaling; Paragraph 20.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include varying angles of reflection as taught by Zegrar.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the wireless channel can be improved as taught by Zegrar; Paragraph 20.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex in view of Zegrar in view of Morita et al. “Morita” US 20120099455.
Regarding claim 8, Alex does not teach choosing what transmission method to use according to receiving power corresponding to the pilots signals; however, Morita teaches a base station receives power information related to pilot signals and sets the transmission power to use for transmission; Paragraphs 58, 81 and 20. Thus one can see the base station receives power information related to pilots and uses this information for transmission of the signaling.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alex to include receiving power information with respect to pilot signals as taught by Morita.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station can use power information from another cell to make a determination on the transmission of signaling as taught by Morita; Paragraphs 58, 81, and 20.
Regarding claim 9, Alex teaches transmitting data (i.e. wireless signals) and pilots after multiplying them by an antenna weight; Paragraph 43. Alex does not expressly disclose a received power being a maximum; however, Morita teaches a base station receives power information related to pilot signals and sets the transmission power to use for transmission; Paragraphs 58, 81, and 20. Paragraphs 58 and 81 further teach the use of a maximum transmission power with respect to the pilots/reference signals. The combination of Alex and Morita would thus read on sending signals after multiplying the antenna weight which all corresponds to the maximum power.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alex to include receiving a max power information with respect to pilot signals as taught by Morita.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station can use power information from another cell to make a determination on the transmission of signaling as taught by Morita; Paragraphs 58, 81, and 20.
Regarding claim 10, Alex teaches transmitting data (i.e. wireless signals) and pilots after multiplying them by an antenna weight; Paragraph 43. Alex does not expressly disclose a received power being a maximum; however, Morita teaches a base station receives power information related to pilot signals and sets the transmission power to use for transmission; Paragraphs 58, 81, and 20. Paragraphs 58 and 81 further teach the use of a maximum transmission power with respect to the pilots/reference signals. The combination of Alex and Morita would thus read on sending signals after multiplying the antenna weight which all corresponds to the maximum power.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alex to include receiving a max power information with respect to pilot signals as taught by Morita.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station can use power information from another cell to make a determination on the transmission of signaling as taught by Morita; Paragraphs 58, 81, and 20.
Regarding claim 11, Alex teaches transmitting data (i.e. wireless signals) and pilots after multiplying them by an antenna weight; Paragraph 43. Alex does not expressly disclose a received power being a maximum and setting details of signal processing; however, Morita teaches a base station receives power information related to pilot signals and sets the transmission power to use for transmission (which can include reducing the power); Paragraphs 58, 81, and 20. This is viewed as setting details of signal processing. Paragraphs 58 and 81 further teach the use of a maximum transmission power with respect to the pilots/reference signals. The combination of Alex and Morita would thus read on sending signals after multiplying the antenna weight which all corresponds to the maximum power.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alex to include receiving a max power information with respect to pilot signals and setting signal processing details as taught by Morita.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station can use power information from another cell to make a determination on the transmission of signaling as taught by Morita; Paragraphs 58, 81, and 20.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevindik et al. “Sevindik” US 2021/0160698 in view of Zegrar.
Regarding claim 12, Sevendik teaches a terminal device (Figure 11) comprising:
a wireless receiver (RX 1120/1124 Figure 11) configured to receive a first-type pilot signal and a plurality of second- type pilot signals (a UE receives pilot signals from a base station; Paragraph 75. As there are multiple pilot signals received, this is equivalent to the first and second type);
processor circuitry (processor 1102 Figure 11) configured to measure received power corresponding to the first-type pilot signal and the plurality of second-type pilot signals (based on the received pilot signals, the UE measures received power; Paragraph 75); and
a wireless transmitter (TX 1122/1126 Figure 11) configured to transmit report information, which is generated by the processor circuitry, to a base station device (the UE sends a report regarding received power information to the base station; Paragraph 75).
Sevendik does not expressly disclose pilot signals that are used for determining a transmission method for communicating via RIS; however, Zegrar teaches pilot signals are associated with RIS and that there are different pilot sequences (i.e. more than one pilot); Paragraphs 112-113. Further, Zegrar teaches channel matrices between the RIS and the UE in which various signals, including pilot signals, are associated with; Paragraph 133. Thus one can see there are pilot signals used for communicating via RIS as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Sevendik to include some pilots associated with RIS as taught by Zegrar.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can incorporate RIS which improves wireless communication performance as taught by Zegrar; Paragraph 4.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Sevendik teaches method and wireless communication system comprising:
a base station and terminal device communication (figures 10 and 11 and paragraph 75);
the base station device includes:
first and second type processor circuitry to generate a first and second type pilot signal and transmit them towards a UE (a UE receives pilot signals from a base station; Paragraph 75. As there are multiple pilot signals received, this is equivalent to the first and second type being sent from the base station in the direction of a UE), and
the terminal device includes:
a wireless receiver (RX 1120/1124 Figure 11) configured to receive a first-type pilot signal and a plurality of second- type pilot signals (a UE receives pilot signals from a base station; Paragraph 75. As there are multiple pilot signals received, this is equivalent to the first and second type);
second-type processor circuitry (processor 1102 Figure 11) configured to measure received power corresponding to the first-type pilot signal and the plurality of second-type pilot signals and generate a report containing the measurement results of the received power (based on the received pilot signals, the UE measures received power and sends a report to the base station; Paragraph 75); and
a second type wireless transmitter (TX 1122/1126 Figure 11) configured to transmit report information, which is generated by the processor circuitry, to a base station device (the UE sends a report regarding received power information to the base station; Paragraph 75).
Sevindik does not disclose the device including a function of varying angle of reflection of received signals or pilot signals that are used for determining a transmission method for communicating via RIS. Zegrar teaches pilot signals are associated with RIS and that there are different pilot sequences (i.e. more than one pilot); Paragraphs 112-113. The system can employ reflective elements which can adjust the angle of reflection for signaling; Paragraph 20. Further, Zegrar teaches channel matrices between the RIS and the UE in which various signals, including pilot signals, are associated; Paragraph 133. Thus one can see there are pilot signals used for communicating via RIS as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Sevendik to include varying angles of reflection and pilot signals associated with RIS as taught by Zegrar.
One would be motivated to make the modification such the system can incorporate RIS which improves wireless communication performance as taught by Zegrar; Paragraph 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant does not provide any specific arguments as to why the amended limitations overcomes the previously cited art. The Examiner has updated the rejection as shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights