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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 12-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al. (WO 2020/254030) in view of Shimizu (JP 2017-211218A).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Bengtsson teaches setting, with a controlling device, a reflection angle of the intelligent reflecting device (Figs. 2A, 3, and 6E, Page 8 lines 1-9, lines 9-16, and Page 13 lines 24-37, control system setting the angle of the intelligent reflecting device etc.). Bengtsson fails to teach detecting a signal.
Shimizu teaches receiving, with a receiving device, a signal from a sending device (Description, receiving detection signal); detecting, with the receiving device, that the signal was reflected by an intelligent reflecting device (Description, receiving detection signal based on an intelligent reflection operation etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate detecting a signal as taught by Shimizu into Bengtsson’s method in order to optimize performance.
Regarding claim 2, the combination including Shimizu teaches sending, with the receiving device, a feedback signal to the controlling device, the feedback signal indicating whether the receiving device detected that the signal was reflected by the intelligent reflecting device (Description, receiving detection signal based on an intelligent reflection operation etc.).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the combination including Bengtsson teaches wherein setting the reflection angle comprises setting, with the controlling device, the reflection angle of the intelligent reflecting device in response to the feedback signal indicating that the signal was reflected by the intelligent reflecting device (Figs. 2A, 3, and 6E, Page 8 lines 1-9, lines 9-16, and Page 13 lines 24-37, control system setting the angle of the intelligent reflecting device etc.).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the combination including Bengtsson teaches wherein the controlling device and the sending device are the same (Figs. 2A, 3, and 6E, Page 8 lines 1-9, lines 9-16, and Page 13 lines 24-37, control system and sending device etc.).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the combination including Bengtsson teaches wherein the receiving device and the controlling device are the same (Figs. 2A, 3, and 6E, Page 8 lines 1-9, lines 9-16, and Page 13 lines 24-37, control system and sending device etc.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination including Bengtsson teaches selecting, with the receiving device, a beam from a plurality of beams, with which to communicate with the sending device, the selecting dependent on detecting that the signal was reflected by the intelligent reflecting device (Figs. 2A, 3, and 6E, Page 8 lines 1-9, lines 9-16, and Page 13 lines 24-37, control system setting the angle of the intelligent reflecting device beams etc.).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al. (WO 2020/254030) in view of Shimizu (JP 2017-211218A) and further in view of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN 110225538A).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Bengtsson in view of Shimizu teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 13. Bengtsson and Shimizu fails to teach a wireless access node and user device.
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China teaches the receiving device comprises a user device and the sending device comprises a wireless access node (Claim 1, base station and plurality of user terminals); or the receiving device comprises a wireless access node and the sending device comprises a user device (Claim 1, base station and plurality of user terminals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a wireless access node and user device as taught by University of Electronic Science and Technology of China into detecting a signal as taught by Shimizu into Bengtsson’s method in order to improve performance of the user.
Regarding claims 9 and 18-19, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China teaches the receiving device comprises a first user device and the sending device comprises a second user device (Claim 1, base station and plurality of user terminals); or the receiving device comprises a first wireless access node and the second device comprises a second wireless access node (Claim 1, base station and plurality of user terminals).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 10-11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks
Examiner’s Response
“Although the Office Action alleges that Shimizu discloses ‘receiving detection signal based on an intelligent reflection operation,’ such is not the case here because Shimizu's detection signal does not detect that the signal was reflected by an intelligent reflecting device”
Shimizu teaches detecting an intelligent reflection received signal. In order to receive this signal then there has to be an intelligent device sending such signal. Further, Bengtsson teaches an intelligent device as well (see rejection above).
“Accordingly, because Shimizu is neither in the same field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent, Shimizu is non-analogous art and improper for use in an obviousness rejection of Applicant's claims.”
In response to applicant's argument that Shimizu is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Shimizu teaches detecting an intelligent reflection which is similar to applicant’s intelligent reflection.
“The Office Action failed to make a sufficient showing that is more than mere conclusory statements to prima facie establish a reason that would have prompted a skilled artisan to combine Bengtsson with Shimizu and/or Liang in the way of Applicant's claims.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, examiner is not bodily incorporating Shimizu into Bengtsson. Instead examiner is showing that it is known to detect an intelligent reflection as taught by Shimizu. Further, examiner gave proper motivation to why you would want to detect an intelligent reflection.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW WENDELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/ANDREW WENDELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights