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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-5 and 12, in the reply filed on 21 January 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 6-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation of “a reflection angle that indicated by the control unit” should read “a reflection angle that is indicated by the control unit” or the like in order to provide grammatical consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the second reflection unit reflects the radio wave at a reflection angle acquired by adding an offset to a reflection angle that indicated by the control unit based on the target reflection angle that represents a reflection angle toward the transmission target to reflect the radio wave at the target reflection angle” which is indefinite for four reasons.
First, it is unclear who or what is “acquiring” the reflection angle, and the nature of such acquisition. In an apparatus claim, limitations must be made based on the structure of function of the structural elements of the claim, whereas this reads more like an abstract method step. Claim 12 is likewise rejected because, while it is a method claim, it must still be clear within the context of the claim what it means to “acquire” a reflection angle, i.e., who or what is acquiring it and the nature of the acquisition, e.g., calculation, transmission, etc. Dependent claims 2-5 fail to cure the deficiency.
Second, the recitation of “a reflection angle acquired by adding an offset to a reflection angle that indicated by the control unit based on the target reflection angle that represents a reflection angle toward the transmission target” which is indefinite, because it uses the term identical “reflection angle” three times for three seemingly independent and distinct angles, which is unclear. Claim 12 is likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-5 fail to cure the deficiency.
Third, the recitation of “the target reflection angle” is indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis. Dependent claims 2-5 fail to cure the deficiency.
Fourth, the recitation of “the second reflection unit reflects the radio wave at a reflection angle” is indefinite because it appears to be written as a method step rather than a structural limitation of the second reflection unit. In other words, the second reflection unit does not inherently or automatically reflect the radio wave at a predetermined angle, it is programmed/operated to do so, i.e., during use as a reconfigurable intelligent metasurface. Dependent claims 2-5 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “the reflective element unit includes” which is indefinite, because it is unclear which of the previously recited “plurality of reflective element units” is being discussed, e.g., each unit, or a specific unit?
Claim 12 recites “indicating, to the second reflection unit, a reflection angle” which is indefinite, because there is nothing in the claim to suggest that the second reflection unit necessarily has so means of receiving and/or processing data, e.g., from an operatively connected control unit. In other words, claim 12 encompasses embodiments of the invention having a “dumb” second reflection unit in a similar manner to the disclosed first reflection unit, thereby lacking antecedent basis for the second reflection unit to suddenly be able to receive an indication of an angle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
With regard to claim 1 (independent claim 12 being substantively similar), Toso et al. (US 2016/0372835 A1) discloses a transmission apparatus (abstract) comprising: a radiation unit configured to radiate a radio wave into space (fig. 1A); a first reflection unit configured to reflect the radio wave radiated from the radiation unit (B; fig. 1A); a second reflection unit configured to reflect the radio wave from the first reflection unit and thereby transmit the radio wave to a transmission target (C; fig. 1A).
However, the prior art does not appear to teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, an amplifier configured to amplify an input signal; the radiation unit configured to radiate based on the input signal amplified by the amplifier; the second reflection unit configured as a reconfigurable intelligent metasurface (RIS) reflecting plate; and a control unit configured to control the second reflection unit, wherein the second reflection unit reflects the radio wave at a reflection angle acquired by adding an offset to a reflection angle that indicated by the control unit based on the target reflection angle that represents a reflection angle toward the transmission target to reflect the radio wave at the target reflection angle.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648