DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In virtue of the communication filed on 11/30/2323 and the preliminary amendment filed on the same date, in which claims 9, 14-15 are amended claims 16-17 are newly added and are presented for examination, wherein claims 1, 10 are recited in independent form. The present Application claims Foreign Priority to CN202110620564.5 with a filing date of 06/03/2021 (certified copy received 11/30/2023) and is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/095991 with a filing date of 05/30/2022.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, without importing limitations from the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “at least one of following” “or” would incorporate only a single option from the list of options which follow. At least one of following under the broadest reasonable interpretation would include only one of the plurality of options and any dependent claims which further modify an option not part of a broadest reasonable interpretation would also not be part of a broadest reasonable interpretation which incorporates a different option.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Optimizing Age of Information Through Aerial Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach” to Samir et al (hereinafter d1) in view of NPL “Passive Beamforming and Information Transfer Design for Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces Aided Multiuser MIMO Systems” to Yan et al (hereinafter d2) in view of United States Patent Application Publication US-20 et al (hereinafter d3) in view of United States Patent Application Publication US-20 et al (hereinafter d4).
Regarding claim 1, as to the limitations “A method for controlling a network node, applied to the network node, the method comprising” d1 discloses techniques in relation to reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) (see d1 Abstract);
as to the limitation “receiving a signaling sent by a base station, wherein the signaling is indicative of at least one of, an operating mode or a phase state of the network node; and regulating at least one of, the operating mode or the phase state of the network node according to the signaling” d1 discloses controlling the phase-shift of RIS elements (see d1 section I) d1 also discloses that the BS continuously controls ... the phase-shift of the reflecting elements, controlling the phase shifts of the RIS, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be managed by a control center at the BS over dedicated reliable control channels as is known from the state of the art the time of filing (see d1 section II); d1 also discloses the exchange the control information between loTDs and the BS wherein the BS controls the phases of RIS elements properly to relay the status-update information (see d1 section III); d1 also discloses relaying status-update information along with adjusting the phases of RIS (see d1 sections IV and V); d1 also discloses that the RIS operates in a full-duplex (FD) relaying mode which suggest appropriately configuring the phase-shift with the aid of the RIS controller (see d1 section I); d1 also suggests considering with the adjustments of RIS's phase-shift as well as appropriate adjustment for the RIS's phase-shift (see d1 section III); d1 also suggests relaying status-update information along with adjusting the phases of RIS (see d1 section IV).
D1 may not explicitly disclose an operating mode however d1 does disclose which is particularly relevant (although, given a broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations may be met by the cited section), in the event that it is determined that d1 does not explicitly disclose any limitation or is in some way disqualified as prior art, attention is directed to d2 which discloses limitation which also meet many of the limitations above as being met by d1 including multiuser multiple-input multiple-output (Mu-MIMO) systems with the aid of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) (see d2 abstract); d2 suggests delivering additional information to the receiver by adopting the on-off reflecting modulation on the RIS elements of the wireless control link (see d2 figure 1; section I) d2 also suggests a controller to adaptively adjust the on-off states and the phase shifts of the reflecting elements to turn-on reflecting elements as well as affect the phases of the reflected signals can be adjusted by the controller to optimize the user-BS communication performance wherein the controller adjusts the on-off reflecting state of each RIS element according to the RIS data, the On-off reflecting modulation (i.e. operating mode) is applied by manipulating the on-off state of each reflecting element (see d2 section II.A); d2 also suggests designing the signaling of x and s at the users and the RIS as well as the receiver at the BS wherein it is noted that the RIS data are reflective of the control signaling (see d2 section II.B);
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
When considering that D2 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations noted above it is noted that d1 in view of d2 does disclose that which is highlighted above, which is particularly relevant (although, given a broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations may be met by the cited section). In the event that it is determined that d1 does not explicitly disclose a particular element or limitation or is in some way disqualified as prior art, attention is directed to d3 which discloses limitation which also meet many of the limitations above as being met by d1 including wherein a terminal device 1 may support mode 1 and mode 2 wherein the base station device may instruct the terminal device 1 whether to operate in mode 1 or operate in mode wherein the base station device may include information (parameter) for instructing the terminal device whether to operate in mode 1 or operate in mode 2 in a higher layer signal and transmit the signal (see d1 para. 0068) d3 also discloses that terminal device may switch operations depending on whether the sixteenth parameter is included in a dedicated message (see d3 para. 0285) as well as implementation in methods, devices and computer readable media (see d3 para. 0001, 0370-0372, Figs 9-10).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
D3 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations noted above it is noted that d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 does disclose that which is noted above which is particularly relevant (although, given a broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations may be met by the cited section). In the event that it is determined that d1, d2, d3 does not explicitly disclose a particular element or limitation or is in some way disqualified as prior art, attention is directed d4 which discloses limitation which also meet many of the limitations above as being met by d1, d2, d3 including the mode of operation may be indicated, determined, and/or selected based on any of the following: (1) DL control information (DCI) for example, a first DCI format may be used for a first operation mode and a second DCI format may be used for a second operation mode (see d4 para. 0151-0152); d4 also suggests that a mode of operation may be indicated by any of: (1) downlink control information (DCI) such that a first DCI format may indicate a first operation mode and a second DCI format may indicate a second operation mode (see d4 para. 0199).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 2, as to the limitations “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein receiving the signaling sent by the base station comprises, receiving the signaling sent by the base station through a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or through a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH)” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 renders obvious signaling sent by a base station which includes PDCCH and/or PDSCH which are standard channels in wireless communication at the time of filing (see d3 para. 0068, 0099-0101, 0106-0111, 0285, 0328).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 3, as to the limitations “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the network node comprises a set of reflective units comprising at least one reflective unit, the signaling comprises downlink control information (DCI) indicative of a phase state of the set of reflective units, and the DCI is scrambled by the base station through a scrambling code; and regulating at least one of, the operating mode or the phase state of the network node according to the signaling comprises, descrambling the signaling through the scrambling code to obtain the DCI; and regulating the phase state of the set of reflective units according to the DCI” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses reflective units (see d1 Fig. 1) using DCI (see d4 para. 0151-0152, 0199) using scrambling codes (see d3 para. 0099-0103) which is used to control (regulate) the state of the reflective surface.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 4, as to the limitations “The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the scrambling code corresponds to the operating mode of the network node, and regulating the phase state of the set of reflective units according to the DCI comprises, determining the operating mode of the network node according to the scrambling code; and controlling, in the operating mode, the phase state of the set of reflective units according to the DCI” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses using scrambling codes (see d3 para. 0099-0103) to regulate the phase of a reflective surface (see d2 sections I-IV) according to the DCI (see d4 para. 0151-0152, 0199).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 5, as to the limitations “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the signaling is indicative of the operating mode of the network node, a mode indicating field in the DCI corresponds to the operating mode of the network node, and regulating the operating mode of the network node according to the signaling comprises, identifying the mode indicating field in radio resource control (RRC), medium access control (MAC), or downlink control information (DCI) according to a type of signaling; and determining the operating mode of the network node according to the mode indicating field” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses DCI used for indicating operation modes (see d4 para. 0151-0152, 0199; d3 para. 0099-0103, 0321) using RRC MAC (see d3 para. 0080, 0108-0111, 0190) which is common and part of standards before the time of filing.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 7, as to the limitations “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the network node is in communicative connection with a control center, and the method further comprises, receiving a regulation instruction sent by the control center to regulate an operating state or the operating mode of the network node according to the regulation instruction; or, receiving third phase regulation information sent by the control center to regulate a phase state of the set of reflective units according to the third phase regulation information, wherein the third phase regulation information is sent by the base station to the control center, or the third phase regulation information is acquired according to state information reported by a UE to the control center, or the third phase regulation information is acquired according to the state information of the UE reported to the control center by the network node; and wherein the state information comprises at least one of, location information, or channel state information of the UE” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses controlling the phase-shift of RIS elements (see d1 section I) d1 also discloses that the BS continuously controls ... the phase-shift of the reflecting elements, controlling the phase shifts of the RIS, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be managed by a control center at the BS over dedicated reliable control channels as is known from the state of the art the time of filing (see d1 section II); d1 also discloses the exchange the control information between loTDs and the BS wherein the BS controls the phases of RIS elements properly to relay the status-update information (see d1 section III); d1 also discloses relaying status-update information along with adjusting the phases of RIS (see d1 sections IV and V); d1 also discloses that the RIS operates in a full-duplex (FD) relaying mode which suggest appropriately configuring the phase-shift with the aid of the RIS controller (see d1 section I); d1 also suggests considering with the adjustments of RIS's phase-shift as well as appropriate adjustment for the RIS's phase-shift (see d1 section III); d1 also suggests relaying status-update information along with adjusting the phases of RIS (see d1 section IV).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 9, as to the limitations “The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the scrambling code is a radio network temporary identity for identifying the network node” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses scrambling using RNTI (see d3 para. 0099-0103) which is known in wireless communication standards before the time of filing.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 14, as to the limitations “A device for controlling a reflecting intelligent surface (RIS), comprising at least one processor and a memory configured to communicate and connect with the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above further d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 suggests A device for controlling a reflecting intelligent surface (RIS), comprising at least one processor and a memory configured to communicate and connect with the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to carry out the method (see d1 Fig. 1, d2 Fig. 1, d3 Figs. 9-10, para. 0370-0372).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 15, as to the limitations “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer-executable instruction which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 also discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer-executable instruction which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out the method (see d3 para. 0370-0372).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 10, as to the limitations “A method for controlling a network node, applied to a base station, the method comprising” d1 discloses techniques in relation to reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) (see d1 Abstract);
as to the limitation “determining at least one of, an operating mode, or a phase state of the network node; and sending a signaling that is indicative of at least one of, the operating mode, or the phase state of the network node, to the network node” d1 discloses controlling the phase-shift of RIS elements (see d1 section I) d1 also discloses that the BS continuously controls ... the phase-shift of the reflecting elements, controlling the phase shifts of the RIS, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be managed by a control center at the BS over dedicated reliable control channels as is known from the state of the art the time of filing (see d1 section II); d1 also discloses the exchange the control information between loTDs and the BS wherein the BS controls the phases of RIS elements properly to relay the status-update information (see d1 section III); d1 also discloses relaying status-update information along with adjusting the phases of RIS (see d1 sections IV and V); d1 also discloses that the RIS operates in a full-duplex (FD) relaying mode which suggest appropriately configuring the phase-shift with the aid of the RIS controller (see d1 section I); d1 also suggests considering with the adjustments of RIS's phase-shift as well as appropriate adjustment for the RIS's phase-shift (see d1 section III); d1 also suggests relaying status-update information along with adjusting the phases of RIS (see d1 section IV).
D1 may not explicitly disclose an operating mode however d1 does disclose which is particularly relevant (although, given a broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations may be met by the cited section), in the event that it is determined that d1 does not explicitly disclose any limitation or is in some way disqualified as prior art, attention is directed to d2 which discloses limitation which also meet many of the limitations above as being met by d1 including multiuser multiple-input multiple-output (Mu-MIMO) systems with the aid of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) (see d2 abstract); d2 suggests delivering additional information to the receiver by adopting the on-off reflecting modulation on the RIS elements of the wireless control link (see d2 figure 1; section I) d2 also suggests a controller to adaptively adjust the on-off states and the phase shifts of the reflecting elements to turn-on reflecting elements as well as affect the phases of the reflected signals can be adjusted by the controller to optimize the user-BS communication performance wherein the controller adjusts the on-off reflecting state of each RIS element according to the RIS data, the On-off reflecting modulation (i.e. operating mode) is applied by manipulating the on-off state of each reflecting element (see d2 section II.A); d2 also suggests designing the signaling of x and s at the users and the RIS as well as the receiver at the BS wherein it is noted that the RIS data are reflective of the control signaling (see d2 section II.B);
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
When considering that D2 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations noted above it is noted that d1 in view of d2 does disclose that which is highlighted above, which is particularly relevant (although, given a broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations may be met by the cited section). In the event that it is determined that d1 does not explicitly disclose a particular element or limitation or is in some way disqualified as prior art, attention is directed to d3 which discloses limitation which also meet many of the limitations above as being met by d1 including wherein a terminal device 1 may support mode 1 and mode 2 wherein the base station device may instruct the terminal device 1 whether to operate in mode 1 or operate in mode wherein the base station device may include information (parameter) for instructing the terminal device whether to operate in mode 1 or operate in mode 2 in a higher layer signal and transmit the signal (see d1 para. 0068) d3 also discloses that terminal device may switch operations depending on whether the sixteenth parameter is included in a dedicated message (see d3 para. 0285) as well as implementation in methods, devices and computer readable media (see d3 para. 0001, 0370-0372, Figs 9-10).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
D3 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations noted above it is noted that d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 does disclose that which is noted above which is particularly relevant (although, given a broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations may be met by the cited section). In the event that it is determined that d1, d2, d3 does not explicitly disclose a particular element or limitation or is in some way disqualified as prior art, attention is directed d4 which discloses limitation which also meet many of the limitations above as being met by d1, d2, d3 including the mode of operation may be indicated, determined, and/or selected based on any of the following: (1) DL control information (DCI) for example, a first DCI format may be used for a first operation mode and a second DCI format may be used for a second operation mode (see d4 para. 0151-0152); d4 also suggests that a mode of operation may be indicated by any of: (1) downlink control information (DCI) such that a first DCI format may indicate a first operation mode and a second DCI format may indicate a second operation mode (see d4 para. 0199).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 11, as to the limitations “The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the network node comprises a set of reflective units comprising at least one reflective unit, and sending the signaling to the network node comprises, determining a scrambling code according to a network access state of the network node in a serving cell; and sending the signaling to the network node, wherein the signaling comprises downlink control information (DCI) that is indicative of the phase state of the network node, and the DCI is scrambled by the scrambling code” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses reflective units (see d1 Fig. 1) using DCI (see d4 para. 0151-0152, 0199) using scrambling codes (see d3 para. 0099-0103) which is used to control (regulate) the state of the reflective surface.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 16, as to the limitations “A device for controlling a reflecting intelligent surface (RIS), comprising at least one processor and a memory configured to communicate and connect with the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to carry out the method as claimed in claim 10” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above further d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 suggests A device for controlling a reflecting intelligent surface (RIS), comprising at least one processor and a memory configured to communicate and connect with the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to carry out the method (see d1 Fig. 1, d2 Fig. 1, d3 Figs. 9-10, para. 0370-0372).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 17, as to the limitations “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer-executable instruction which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out the method as claimed in claim 10” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 also discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer-executable instruction which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out the method (see d3 para. 0370-0372).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including maximize the sum channel capacity (see d2 Abstract). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (RIS) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d2 Abstract) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including increased efficiency (see d3 para. 0027). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d3 to the implementation of d1 in view of d3 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d3 para. 0027) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1, d2 d3 with d4 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including improved performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D4 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d4 to the implementation of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 with d4 to yield the predictable result of better performance (see d4 para. 0084, 0106) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d4 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of d4 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 12, 13 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SCOTT TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-3189. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs. 9:00-4:00.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached on 5712723965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN S TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643