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
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 2/25/2026. Claims 11, 15 and 19 have been amended. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending and an action is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant Argues, “Zhang fails to disclose all the features of claim 1, which recites, inter alia, ‘at a first time, program the adjustable devices based on a first control signal received from the second electronic device,’ ‘at a second time, program the adjustable devices based on a second control signal received from the third electronic device’ (emphasis added).
In the Office Action, it was suggested that the ‘scheduling device’ operating in steps 1002 and 1004 of Zhang is the same as both the second electronic device and the third electronic device of claim 1. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Zhang describes in connection with FIGS. 9 and 10, using a single electronic device, i.e., a ‘scheduling entity,’ to program the adjustable devices at different respective (first/second) times. While Zhang describes that the scheduling entity can include a base station or a UE device, Zhang makes no mention of switching between using the base station and the UE device as the "scheduling entity" at different times. On the contrary, paragraphs 103, 104, 121, 122, and 1004 describe using the same scheduling entity (i.e., ‘a base station’) to perform transmit control signals to the reflective device in all of operations 902/904 of FIG. 9 and operations 1002 and 1004 of FIG. 10. Put differently, Zhang simply fails to show or suggest using one of the UE device and the base station to transmit the control signals of operations 902/1002 and the other of the UE device and the base station to transmit the control signals of operations 904/1004. Zhang therefore fails to show or suggest ‘at a first time, program the adjustable devices based on a first control signal received from the second electronic device,’ ‘at a second time, program the adjustable devices based on a second control signal received from the third electronic device,’ as recited by claim 1.”
The Examiner disagrees. Zhang discloses in ¶38 that “Base stations 108 are not the only entities that may function as scheduling entities… a UE may function as a scheduling entity. Other devices may also perform scheduling operations.” There for Zhang discloses that scheduling operations are performed by more than a single scheduling entity. Thus, the Controllable Reflective Surface of Figs. 7 and 8 (interpreted by the Examiner to be the RIS as claimed by the Applicant) having a plurality of subsets of reflecting elements of an array controlled to configure a plurality reflecting configurations is configured to receive configuration control signals from both the scheduling entity of the Base station and the UE; wherein scheduling entity element is the same and it exists in at least both the Base station and the UE. The Examiner notes that the claims do not require any switching to be performed as the claim language does to explicitly limit the claims in a manner that necessitates switching as argued by the Applicant. However the claims do require that the first electronic device (interpreted as the RIS of the Applicant disclosed by the controllable reflective surface of Zhang) is configured to operate on wireless signals conveyed between a second electron device and a third electronic device (disclosed as Zhang’s base station and UE), the first electronic device comprising:… one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to, at a first time, program the adjustable devices based on a first control signal received from the second electronic device, and at a second time, program the adjustable devices based on a second control signal received from the third electronic device (disclosed by Zhang in ¶93 and ¶125 which discloses processors 704 the receiving of multiple control signals during different instances as noted in ¶93 & ¶125 controlling the reflective service from the Base station and also from the UE which both function as a scheduling entity, wherein the reception of the multiple control signals during different time instances is expressed as occurring at different steps and during loop back operations in ¶125). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant and notes that the controllable reflective surface of Zhang has processors and receiving hardware which configure it (or otherwise give it the ability) to perform the operations as claimed by the Applicant including receiving from both a Base station and a UE, each having the scheduling entity, a first and a second control signals to program the adjustable devices coupled to the array scattering elements of the RIS (controllable reflective surface) [Zhang, Figs. 7-14B, ¶38, ¶93 and ¶125]. For at least these reasons claim 1 is not allowable over Zhang. Additionally dependent claims 2-10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. US 2024/0356217 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a first electronic device configured to operate on wireless signals conveyed between a second electronic device and a third electronic device, the first electronic device comprising:
([Zhang, Fig. 5B ¶79] The claimed first electronic device is shown in Fig. 5B as the controllable reflective surface 555 used to reflect wireless signals between the base station (BS) 505 and the User Equipment (UE) 510, wherein any of the base station 505 and the UE 510 may represent the claimed second electronic device and the third electronic device)
PNG
media_image1.png
426
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an array of scattering elements;
([Zhang, Fig. 8, ¶80, ¶97 and ¶99] The controllable reflective surface 555 is represented in Fig. 8 as the controllable reflective surface 800. The controllable reflective surface 800 comprises an array 801 of reflective elements 802 including an array of radiating components 805, wherein each radiating component 805 is, for example, single or dual-pole radiator or antenna. The term reflecting is interpreted by the Examiner as being equivalent to the claimed term “scattering” based on the support provided in paragraph 45 of the Specification of the Instant Application (IA) as filed by the Applicant on 9/8/2023 (or ¶52 of the IA’s pre-grant publication). Additionally, the controllable reflective surface 555 is also referred to as a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS), and intelligent reflecting surface (IRS), a large intelligent surface (LIS), a software-controlled metasurface or any other suitable terminology within the disclosure of Zhang provided in ¶80.)
PNG
media_image2.png
510
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
adjustable devices coupled to the array of scattering elements; and
([Zhang, Fig. 8, ¶97-¶99] Phase shifting components 810 of Zhang’s Fig. 8 are interpreted as the claimed adjustable devices as these phase shifting components 810 are able to be configured and reconfigured based on a control signal set to modify the amount of phase shift provided such that the reflecting elements are able to reflect radio frequency (RF) signals in one or more directions. The phase shifting components 810/812 are each coupled to the array of radiating components 805, interpreted as the claimed array of scattering elements as mentioned above.)
one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to,
at a first time, program the adjustable devices based on a first control signal received from the second electronic device, and
([Zhang, Figs. 7, 8 and 10 Block 1002, ¶93, ¶98, ¶121 and ¶127-¶133] The controllable reflective surface 800 further includes a processing system 830 comprising a processor 704 which is interpreted as the claimed “one or more processors”. The processor 704 is configured to, at a first time program the array of reflective elements 712 (reflective elements 712 comprise the phase shifting components 715 which is interpreted as the claimed adjustable devices) based on a first control signal received from the scheduling device (interpreted as the claimed “second electronic device”)
PNG
media_image3.png
508
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
500
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
at a second time, program the adjustable devices based on a second control signal received from the third electronic device.
([Zhang, Figs. 7, 8 and 10 Block 1004, ¶93, ¶98, ¶122-¶123 and ¶131 ] The controllable reflective surface 800 further includes a processing system 830 comprising a processor 704 which is interpreted as the claimed “one or more processors”. The processor 704 is configured to, at a second time (second instance as indicated in Block 1004) program the array of reflective elements 712 (reflective elements 712 comprise the phase shifting components 715 which is interpreted as the claimed adjustable devices) based on a second control signal received from the scheduling device (interpreted as the claimed “third electronic device”) as scheduling device may be any of the BS or the UE as mentioned above in the Examiner mapping of the preamble to the disclosure of Zhang.)
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the first electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a receiver coupled to one or more scattering elements in the array of scattering elements.
(The communication circuit 740 is configured with the function of receiving which the Examiner interprets as being “a receiver” as claimed. This communication circuit 740 is coupled to the one or more reflecting components/elements 716 (scattering elements) in the array of reflecting elements 712 as shown in Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 21, Zhang teaches the first electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first control signal comprises a first setting for the adjustable devices, the second control signal comprising a second setting for the adjustable devices, and the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive a third control signal from the first electronic device that instructs the one or more processors to calculate a third setting for the adjustable devices, and
at a third time, program the adjustable devices using the third setting for the adjustable devices.
(According to Zhang teaches the controllable reflective surface wherein the first control signal 902/1002 comprises a first setting for the adjustable devices shown as the phase shifting components, the second control signal 906/1004 comprising a second setting for adjusting the adjustable devices (phase shifting components), and the processor(s) 704/830 are further configured to: receive a third control signal from the first electronic device that instructs the one or more processors to calculate a third setting for the adjustable devices ([Zhang, ¶123 & ¶125] which is performed with a loop back operation such that the controllable reflective surface receives further control signal sets and is further reconfigured (e.g. into a third reflecting configuration, fourth reflecting configuration, fifth reflecting configuration, etc.) as the controllable reflective surface continues to operate. Thus accordingly, the controllable reflective surface may, over time (which may include a first, second and third time instances), be reconfigured according to further received control signals.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhuang US 2023/0261718 (hereinafter Zhuang).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the first electronic device of claim 1 comprising one or more processors configure to program adjustable devices [Zhang, Fig. 5b, 704, 706 and 714 (the processor(s) configured to program phase shifting elements, interpreted as the adjustable devices, to effect the proper phase for reflecting signals between the UE and base station) and 715 (phase shifting elements)].
But it does not teach the adjustable devices comprise diodes and controlling the adjustable devices by supplying voltages to the diodes.
However, Zhuang teaches wherein the adjustable devices comprise diodes, the one or more processors being configured to program the adjustable devices by supplying voltages to the diodes. ([Zhuang, Fig. 3, ¶100] Zhuang teaches the reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) module configuring control modes that may be implemented by the reconfigurable intelligent surface by controlling parameters such as the reflection angle or incidence angle of the RIS module of the radio wave by using control modes that utilize diodes, wherein different voltages may be applied to the diodes which effectively makes the diodes the adjustable devices that are being supplied voltages)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang, indicating the ability to change the phase of the phase components of the RIS for modifying the reflective elements to reflect signals to a first direction at a first instance and a second direction at second instance, with the teachings of Zhuang, indicating that the phase changes for modifying the reflective antennas of the RIS may be performed using a applying different voltages to the diodes to control the reflection angle. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to reflect the signal by controlling the phase of each RIS unit by a difference of 180° between reflected phases of radio waves [Zhuang, ¶100].
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chowdhury et al. US 2022/0344826 (hereinafter Chowdhury).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the first electronic device of claim 1, having adjustable devices for imparting controls to reflect signals between communicating devices ([See Zhang, Figs. 5b, 7, 8 and 10] See the rejection of claim 1 above which outlines that the controllable reflective surface (also referred to as an RIS) 555/800 comprises adjustable phase components which may be configured and reconfigured using control signals to change the phase/reflective direction of the array of reflective elements at different instances in time as further indicated by blocks 1002 and 1004 of Fig. 10 of Zhang.)
But Zhang does not teach the adjustable devices, which are noted in Zhang as the adjustable phase components, being configured to impart a first set of impedances to the array of scattering elements at the first time and the adjustable devices being configured to impart a second set of impedances to the array of scattering elements at the second time.
However, Chowdhury teaches the adjustable devices, which are noted above in Zhang as the adjustable phase components, however Chowdhury further specifies that the changes to the phase may be performed by utilizing a selectable range of impedance matching circuits that are programmable in terms of their impedance to effect changes (indicative of a before impedance and after impedance with respect to the change) to the reflective antenna (interpreted as the array of reflective elements/components of Zhang), thus Chowdhury discloses being the adjustable devices configured to impart a first set of impedances to the array of scattering elements at the first time and the adjustable devices being configured to impart a second set of impedances to the array of scattering elements at the second time [Chowdhury, ¶58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang, indicating the ability to change the phase of the phase components of the RIS for modifying the reflective elements to reflect signals to a first direction at a first instance and a second direction at second instance, with the teachings of Chowdhury, indicating that the phase changes for modifying the reflective antennas of the RIS may be performed using a selectable rage of impedance matching circuits which a correspondingly programed to achieve the changes in phase of the reflected signal via altering of the antenna reflection coefficient. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to allow for RIS-guided reflections to allow flexibility in imparting the desired complex-valued amplitude and phase changes to the signal [Chowdhury, ¶58].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhang, in view of Chowdhury teaches the first electronic device of claim 3, the array of scattering elements being configured to reflect the wireless signals in a first direction at the first time and in a second direction at the second time.
([Zhang, Fig. 10, Block 1002 and Block 1004, ¶121-¶122, 125] The blocks 1002 and 1004 are different instances (times) when the array of reflecting elements is configured to reflect wireless signals in direction per each instance. It is noted that there may be more than two different instances/times for reconfiguration of the reflecting elements as the blocks 1004 and 1004 may be performed in a loop operation.)
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gutman et al. US 2024/0007881 (hereinafter Gutman).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the first electronic device of claim 5, (See the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the receiver of the controllable reflective surface (shown in Fig. 2 as the controllable reflective surface 252 and also referred to as the RIS) receives a downlink signal transmitted by the second electronic device (wherein the second electronic device may be the base station (BS)) [Zhang, Fig. 2, ¶50, ¶80 (wherein the incoming DL signals may be amplified through reflection using the reflective components/elements) and ¶93].
PNG
media_image5.png
550
790
media_image5.png
Greyscale
But Zhang does not teach wherein the controllable reflect surface is configured to measure the received downlink signals.
However, Gutman teaches wherein the receiver is configured to measure, using the one or more scattering elements, a downlink (DL) signal transmitted by the second electronic device. [¶92 (the RIS may receive signals from the Network Node), ¶154-¶154 (The RIS may receive a reference signal on a dedicated resource of the DL channel for measuring the DL channel)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang, indicating the ability to receive signals via an controllable reflective surface/RIS using the onboard reflective components, with the teachings of Gutman, indicating that the RIS may receive reference signals (RS) on dedicated DL resources and measure the DL channel. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to determine channel quality and perform actions to improve the communication reliability over the channel [Gutman, ¶116 and ¶151].
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches the first electronic device of claim 6, (See the rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the receiver of the controllable reflective surface (shown in Fig. 2 as the controllable reflective surface 252 and also referred to as the RIS) receives a uplink signal transmitted by the third electronic device (wherein the third electronic device may be the user equipment (UE)) [Zhang, Fig. 2, ¶50, ¶80 (wherein the incoming UL signals may be amplified through reflection using the reflective components/elements) and ¶93 (the scheduling entity may be the UE as per ¶38)].
PNG
media_image5.png
550
790
media_image5.png
Greyscale
But Zhang does not teach wherein the controllable reflect surface is configured to measure the received uplink signals.
However, Gutman teaches wherein the receiver is configured to measure, using the one or more scattering elements, an uplink (UL) signal transmitted by the third electronic device. [Gutman, ¶50 and ¶82 (the RIS may receive signals from the UE), ¶107 and ¶154-¶154 (The RIS may receive a reference signal on a dedicated resource of the UL channel for measuring the UL channel)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang, indicating the ability to receive signals via a controllable reflective surface/RIS using the onboard reflective components, with the teachings of Gutman, indicating that the RIS may receive reference signals (RS) on dedicated UL resources and measure the DL channel. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to determine channel quality and perform actions to improve the communication reliability over the channel [Gutman, ¶116 and ¶151].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Gutman as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of DAI et al. US 2022/0271995 (hereinafter DAI).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhang, in view of Gutman teaches the first electronic device of claim 8, ([Zhang, Figs. 5b and 8, ¶80] Disclosed by Zhang as the controllable reflective surface of reconfigurable reflective surface (RIS) having an antenna (array of antenna elements), which the RIS uses to communicate between a base station and a UE)
But it does not teach transmitting a message instructing the second electronic device or the third electronic device to control the RIS.
However, DAI teaches that the RIS transmits to the base station/UE a message (RIS information message) which instructs the base station/UE to control the RIS (the RIS information in a self-identification “I am here” message which also comprises capabilities of the RIS and the identity of the RIS), wherein in response to the UE or base station receiving this RIS information in the self-identification message from the RIS, the UE/base station will transmit to the RIS an explicit indication to the RIS instructing the RIS to stop transmitting the RIS information indication and to change to a lower power mode 712-714 as shown in Fig. 7 and further the base station will transmit control signals to the RIS for controlling the RIS reflection of signals using the capability information of the RIS [DAI, ¶76-¶79, ¶91 and ¶95]. The Examiner interprets the RIS information message as an instruction message as it serves to inform the base station/UE that it is available for use and further instructs the base station/UE of the capabilities which are to used by the base station/UE in order to control the RIS to perform signal reflection/relaying which is an intended purpose of the RIS device in the wireless communication system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang, in view of Gutman, indicating the ability to receive signals via a controllable reflective surface/RIS using the onboard reflective components, with the teachings of DAI, indicating that the RIS may send information which is utilized by the base station to control the RIS to reflect signals. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to discover RIS present in the wireless communication system and utilize the devices to improve coverage of the wireless communication system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Gutman as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. US 2022/0407222 (hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhang, in view of Gutman teaches he first electronic device of claim 6, which shown as the controllable reflective surface and also referred to as the reflective intelligent surface (RIS) or intelligent reflective surface (IRS) having antenna elements in an array (See the rejection of claim 6 above [Zhang, Figs. 5b and 8, ¶80])
But it does not teach further comprising an antenna configured to transmit, to the third electronic device, a message identifying the measurement of the DL signal.
However, Zhu teaches wherein the RIS/IRS may transmit measurements of a DL signal (shown as the reference signal received power (RSRP) of the SSB burst signals sent in the downlink direction from the gNodeB (gNB) to the UE [Zhu, Fig.8, Steps10-15 and 135-140, ¶78-¶79])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang, in view of Gutman, indicating the ability to receive signals via a controllable reflective surface/RIS and transmit signals using the onboard reflective/antenna components, with the teachings of Zhu, indicating that the RIS/IRS may send measurement of the DL signal to the UE. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to provide a solution to determining the best departure angles of the reflected signals from the IRS towards the UE based on, for example, RSRP measurements for different departure angles configured for the IRS.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Gutman as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of LY et al. US 2025/007564 (hereinafter LY).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhang, in view of Gutman teaches he first electronic device of claim 5, which shown as the controllable reflective surface and also referred to as the reflective intelligent surface (RIS) or intelligent reflective surface (IRS) having antenna elements in an array (See the rejection of claim 5 above [Zhang, Figs. 5b and 8, ¶80]. The antenna elements are also interpreted to be scattering elements as they operate to send/receive or otherwise reflect incoming signals.)
But it does not teach wherein the receiver is configured to measure, using the one or more scattering elements, an uplink (UL) signal transmitted by the third electronic device, the RIS further comprising an antenna configured to transmit, to the second electronic device, a message identifying the measurement of the UL signal.
However, LY teaches wherein the RIS may receive and uplink transmission and perform measurements of the uplink signal producing RSRP measurements and weights for a suitable beam direction based on the measurements and send this information to the base station using its transmission ability, wherein this information sent to the base station identifies the measurement of the UL signal as the weights correspond to the best UL signal measurements and spatial direction [LY, ¶114-¶119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang, in view of Gutman, indicating the ability to receive signals via a controllable reflective surface/RIS and transmit signals using the onboard reflective/antenna components, with the teachings of LY, indicating that the RIS/IRS may send a message indicating measurement of the UL signal. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to provide a solution to determining the best beams/spatial directions of the reflected signals for reflection of the signals for communicating between the base station and UE using the IRS.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner has conducted as prior art search of the available Patent and Non-Patent Literature and was unable to find any prior art which teaches either solely or in combination with another reference to the claim limitations which recites “wherein transmitting the signal comprises: when the first measurement and the second measurement have first values, instructing the second electronic device to control the RIS; and when the first measurement and the second measurement have second values, informing the second electronic device that the first electronic device will control the RIS” in combination with all other claim limitations of claim 11; and “identifying, using the one or more processors, a second distance between the second electronic device and the RIS; and transmitting, using a transmitter, a signal to the second electronic device, wherein the signal identifies a control mode of the RIS that is selected based on the first distance and the second distance” in combination with all the other claim limitations of claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zegrar et al. US 2023/0421412 (hereinafter Zegrar)
Zegrar discloses ¶45 “… where β(d.sub.g,d.sub.h,θ.sub.des,φ.sub.des) is a total path loss calculated as in the paper by W. Tang et al mentioned above. That is, the path loss is in general a function of the distance d.sub.g between the base station and the RIS, the distance d.sub.h between the RIS and the UE (see FIG. 1), and the departure angle of signals from the RIS.”
Thus Zegrar discloses the identifying of the first distance between the first node (the BS or UE) and the RIS and the identifying of a second distance between the second node (the other of the BS or UE not utilized in the identified first distance). But it does not disclose the claim limitation of “transmitting, using a transmitter, a signal to the second electronic device, wherein the signal identifies a control mode of the RIS that is selected based on the first distance and the second distance” nor the ordered sequence of the steps in their recited combination as recited in claim 17, in combination with all the other claim limitations of claim 17.
PNG
media_image6.png
476
728
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhu et al. US 2022/0407222 (hereinafter Zhu)
The disclosure of Zhu is similar to the disclosure of Zegrar as noted by the two distances dt and dr in Fig. 2 shown below. The shortcomings of Zhu are also similar to the shortcomings of Zegrar regarding the omission of the specific order of steps and the omission of the claim limitation reciting “transmitting, using a transmitter, a signal to the second electronic device, wherein the signal identifies a control mode of the RIS that is selected based on the first distance and the second distance”
PNG
media_image7.png
294
440
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Obeid US 2025/0167835 (hereinafter Obeid)
The disclosure of Obeid is similar to the disclosure of Zegrar as noted by the two distances dtx and drx in Fig. 4 shown below. The shortcomings of Obeid are also similar to the shortcomings of Zegrar regarding the omission of the specific order of steps and the omission of the claim limitation reciting “transmitting, using a transmitter, a signal to the second electronic device, wherein the signal identifies a control mode of the RIS that is selected based on the first distance and the second distance”
PNG
media_image8.png
582
744
media_image8.png
Greyscale
DUAN et al US 2024/0319359 (hereinafter DUAN)
See ¶83 and ¶134-¶140; Duan teaches wherein the operation mode of a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) that is associated with a base station (BS) may be determined first (operation mode 1 being operating as a reflector in a passive state using its surface as a reflective surface or operation mode 2 being operating in the similar to the amplify and forward functionality of a relay node in an active state as a receiver, amplifier and transmitter between the original source and target destination) and the operation mode of the RIS is received in a report from the RIS by a user equipment UE (wherein the UE is a positioning entity). The UE operating as the positioning entity then in response to receiving the report from the RIS comprising the operation mode of the RIS then receives a time difference measurement for a network node (the base station (BS) associated with the RIS) involved in an round trip time (RTT) with the UE and determines based on the time difference and related information a distance between the UE and the RIS through a calculation. This is the reverse order of claim 17 as the operation mode included in the received report is the first step in the sequence of DUAN while it is the last time made as a selection based on the identified distance between the RIS and a first device (either the UE or the BS) in combination with the separately identified time difference between the RIS and a second device (the other of the UE or the BS not utilized as the first device as indicated above). It is also noted that the DUAN reference is missing one of the two separated identifying steps of identifying the distance between the RIS and the BS. Even if this distance were identified which could be possibly performed by taking into account the RTT and the time difference between the RIS and the UE in combination with the signal propagation speed (distance divided by the time taken for the signal to travel between the two points), there would still be the issue of providing a rationale for obviousness as to why the order of all three steps (#1 receiving report including operation mode, #2 identifying distance between the UE and RIS, and #3 identifying the distance between the RIS and BS) should be reversed which DUAN does not provide. The rationale for claim objecting to claim 14 is similar to that of claim 17.
PNG
media_image9.png
464
478
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 LONNIE V SWEET whose telephone number is (571)270-3622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/LONNIE V SWEET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights