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 Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 06/30/2026.
Claim(s) 1-11, 17-25, 31, and 33-41 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 17, and 34 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 17, 25, 33-34, and 41 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 2-9, 18-24, 31, and 35-40 is/are objected to.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/30/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 17, 25, 33-34, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20240171239_A1_Wang in view of US_20230171624_A1_Iwabuchi and US_20250330962_A1_Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a reflecting device (Wang figures 3, 5, phase-changing device), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured to cause the reflecting device to (Wang figures 3, 5, phase-changing device): receive the first signal and the second signal (Wang figure 5, narrow-beam wireless signals 512-518); and reflect the first signal and the second signal to output a spatially multiplexed reflected signal using the multi-peak reflection beam (Wang figure 5, reflected wireless signal 522-528).
Wang does not teach generate a multi-peak reflection beam that spatially multiplexes a first reflected signal of a first signal and a second reflected signal of a second signal based at least in part on an overall set of beam weights.
Iwabuchi from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: generate a multi-peak reflection beam that spatially multiplexes a first reflected signal of a first signal and a second reflected signal of a second signal (Iwabuchi figure 4, paragraph 4 “…the number of spatial multiplexes is limited to one (or two by polarization multiplexing)…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Iwabuchi into Wang, since Wang suggests a technique for adaptive phase-changing device in a communication path for a wireless signal carrying the multi-UE communication, and Iwabuchi suggests the beneficial way of spatial multiplexes so that/thus drastically increase data throughput in the analogous art of communication.
Wang and Iwabuchi do not teach generate the reflection beam based at least in part on an overall set of beam weights.
Wu from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: generate the reflection beam based at least in part on an overall set of beam weights (Wu figure 4, and paragraph 23, “Based on the foregoing solution, the second network device is indicated to adjust the reflected beam based on the N sets of specified weights, so as to change a beam gain at the location of the terminal device”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Wu into Wang and Iwabuchi, since Wang and Iwabuchi suggests a technique for adaptive phase-changing device in a communication path for a wireless signal carrying the multi-UE communication, and Wu suggests the beneficial way of adjust the reflected beam based on the N sets of specified weights so that/thus reduce an energy gain loss of communication performed by a terminal device in a near field scenario, and improve strength of a signal obtained by the terminal device (Wu paragraph 5) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 10, Wang, Iwabuchi and Wu teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Wang further discloses wherein the first reflected signal and the second reflected signal include more than one layer per polarization (Wang paragraphs 15, 24, 41, 51, polarization).
Regarding claim 11, Wang, Iwabuchi and Wu teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Wang further discloses wherein the reflecting device is a reconfigurable intelligent (Wang figures 3-4, reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS)).
Regarding claim 17, Wang, Iwabuchi and Wu teach e the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Wang, Iwabuchi and Wu teach the limitations as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 33, Wang, Iwabuchi and Wu teach the limitations as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 34, Wang, Iwabuchi and Wu teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 41, Wang, Iwabuchi and Wu teach the limitations as set forth in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 18-24, 31, and 35-40 is/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.
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 WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights