DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under Sherstobitov in view of Liu or Kong have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument that Sherstobitov, Liu, and Kong do not teach detecting and localizing the target UE based on uplink transmissions as recited in the amended claims (response pages 9-12). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Bengtsson, Liu, and Kong. The rejection is non-final because detecting and localizing the target UE based on uplink transmissions was previously recited in dependent claims 5 and 14.
Examiner further agrees with Applicant’s argument that the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20. The rejection is therefore withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson (US 20230224003 A1) in view of [Liu (US 20250132785 A1) or Kong (US 11750319 B1)].
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Bengtsson teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Bengtsson are lined through] a system for enabling autonomous beam forming in a wireless network, said system comprising:
a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) controller (CPU 431, Fig. 4) associated with a RIS panel (RRD 330, Fig. 3; 434, Fig. 4; abstract “re-configurable reflective device, RRD”; para. [0002] “re-configurable reflective devices (RRD), sometimes also referred to as reflecting large intelligent surface (LIS)”) enabling a communication (para. [0001] “communicating between nodes using re-configurable reflective devices”) between an access point (320, Fig. 3) and one or more user equipments (UEs) (310, Fig. 3) in the wireless network, wherein the RIS controller is configured to:
detect a target UE present in the vicinity of the RIS panel based on one or more signals received from the target UE by receiving one or more uplink (UL) transmissions associated with the target UE (8002, Fig. 8 “Receive UE reference signal”; para. [0079]; Fig. 1 “UL”);
localize the target UE to identify a relative position of the target UE with respect to the one or more UEs by estimating an angle of arrival (AoA) associated with the target UE based on the received one or more UL transmissions (8003, Fig. 8 “Determine UE angle of arrival”; para. [0079]); and
(8004, Fig. 8 “Set given output spatial direction”; para. [0079] “In step 8004, re-configuring of the RRD may take place, in which a given output spatial direction may be set to correspond to the UE angle of arrival”).
Bengtsson further teaches the beam forming enabled by a selected “spatial filter” (para. [0097] “the spatial filter provided by the RRD is associated with a respective spatial direction into which the incident signals are reflected”) and that the RRD comprises “a phased array of antennas” (para. [0049]). Bengtsson does not teach the beam forming enabled by selecting a reflection coefficient matrix (RCM).
However an RCM is a known implementation of Bengtonsson’s “spatial filter”. For example see Liu’s abstract “RIS”, “phases states of all elements” and “receiving a reflection coefficients matrix” and Kong 9:33-35:
PNG
media_image1.png
60
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify Sherstobitov by selecting a RCM as taught by Liu or Kong because it is a known method of providing RIS panel phase shifts that could be used with predictable results. This is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the selected RCM will enable reflection of a beam from the access point towards the target as shown in Bengtsson Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 19, Bengtsson teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught are lined through] a user equipment (UE) (310, Fig. 3), comprising:
one or more processors (inherent); and
a memory operatively coupled to the one or more processors (inherent), wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions, which on execution, cause the one or more processors to:
transmit one or more uplink (UL) signals (transmission from 310 to 330, Fig. 3; ) to a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) controller (RIS 330, Fig. 3 or 430, Fig. 4, with controller at 431, Fig. 4; 8002 “Receive UE reference signal”) to provide a location of the UE based on estimation of an angle of arrival (AoA) associated with the target UE (8003 “Determine UE angle of arrival”, Fig. 8); and
receive signals from an access point through one or more reflection beams formed by the RIS controller (page 5 lines 3-5 “a method for performing wireless communication is provided. The method comprises the step of reflecting, by a wireless signal reflector, a wireless signal from a source network object towards a target network object” in view of page 1 line 21 “user equipment” and line 22 “access point”)
Bengtsson further teaches the beam forming enabled by a selected “spatial filter” (para. [0097] “the spatial filter provided by the RRD is associated with a respective spatial direction into which the incident signals are reflected”) and that the RRD comprises “a phased array of antennas” (para. [0049]). Bengtsson does not teach the beam forming enabled by selecting a reflection coefficient matrix (RCM).
However an RCM is a known implementation of Bengtonsson’s “spatial filter”. For example see Liu’s abstract “RIS”, “phases states of all elements” and “receiving a reflection coefficients matrix” and Kong 9:33-35:
PNG
media_image1.png
60
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify Sherstobitov by selecting a RCM as taught by Liu or Kong because it is a known method of providing RIS panel phase shifts that could be used with predictable results. This is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10, Bengtsson teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more instructions executed by a processor (para. [0050] “processor 431”, “memory 432”, “load program code from the non-volatile memory and execute the program code”).
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson (US 20230224003 A1) in view of [Liu (US 20250132785 A1) or Kong (US 11750319 B1)] as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Sherstobitov (WO 2022182264 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Bengtsson broadly teaches the RIS panel comprises a phased array of antennas (para. [0049]). Bengtsson does not teach wherein the RIS panel comprises an array of one or more reflecting elements and one or more sensing elements.
Sherstobitov, in analogous art, teaches a RIS panel (400, Fig. 4) comprising one or more reflecting elements and one or more sensing elements (reflecting elements 402-I, Fig. 4; sensing elements 404-i, Fig. 4; page 9 line 34 – page 11 line 32). Shertobitov teaches that this structure provides increased flexibility compared to prior art structures (page 9 lines 12 – 33).
It would have been obvious to implement Bengtsson’s RIS panel using an array of one or more reflecting elements and one or more sensing elements as taught by Sherstobitov in order to provide increased flexibility. This is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, movement of the UE is taught by Bengtsson at para. [0096] “mobile devices” and para. [0102] “the UE, which is assumed mobile”, and Sherstobitov’s sensing elements inherently assist the RIS controller to detect the presence and movement associated with the target UE.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Bengtsson modified by Liu or Kong has already been shown to teach selecting an RCM. Regarding the RIS controller configured to select a second RCM based on the detected movement associated with the target UE this, detected movement is at least implied by Bengtsson para. [0102] “beam management toward the UE, which is assumed mobile”, and selection of a second RCM based on detected movement is at least implied by Bengtsson para. [0057] “Based on the estimated UE angle of arrival, the RRD 530 may be re-configured. Re-configuring the RRD 530 may imply selecting a spatial filter such that the input spatial direction corresponds to the known position and orientation of the AN 520 and output spatial direction corresponds to the estimated UE angle of arrival”). Examiner notes that, as discussed above, an RCM is an obvious implementation of Bengtsson’s “spatial filter”.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Bengtsson teaches wherein the RIS controller is configured to: form reflection beams based on at least one of the selected first and second optimum RCM to direct one or more signals from the access point towards the target UE (implied by “beam management toward the UE, which is assumed mobile” in para. [0102]; Fig. 3 and paras. [0047]-[0048]; para. [0057] “Based on the estimated UE angle of arrival, the RRD 530 may be re-configured. Re-configuring the RRD 530 may imply selecting a spatial filter such that the input spatial direction corresponds to the known position and orientation of the AN 520 and output spatial direction corresponds to the estimated UE angle of arrival”).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson (US 20230224003 A1) in view of [Liu (US 20250132785 A1) or Kong (US 11750319 B1)] and Sherstobitov (WO 2022182264 A1) as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of Sakuma (US 10944456 B1) and Lippman (“Pattern Classification Using Neural Networks” p. 47).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Bengtsson does not teach wherein the RIS controller is configured to select the first and the second optimum RCM from a RCM lookup table obtained based on training a neural network for different RCM associated with different UE locations.
However, it is well-known to use a lookup table to obtain beam forming parameters such as Bengtsson’s spatial filter and Liu/Kong’s RCM. For example, Sakuma, in analogous art (abstract “beamforming”), teaches a lookup table for selecting antenna weight vectors (abstract “antenna weight vectors selected from the beam pattern table”; 4:30-33 “the AWV indicates a vector representing the gain of the amplitude adjuster and the amount of phase shift of the variable phase shifter corresponding to each antenna element”). Beams corresponding to the different antenna weight vectors are shown in Fig. 1, and the table is shown at “LUT” 221. Each beam is implicitly “associated with” different UE locations.
It would have been obvious to further modify Bengtsson by implementing a beamforming lookup table because it would increase efficiency by providing pre-calculated weights for different beam directions.
Regarding obtaining the lookup table based on training a neural network, this is a classification problem (see specification para. [00127]) and the advantages of neural networks for classification problems are well-known. For example see Lippman “neural-net classifiers work well for many real-world problems... provide reduced error rates... provide selection of differing practical characteristic” (page 47 left hand column, third paragraph).
It would have been obvious to further modify Bengtsson by using a neural network to obtain the table as taught by Lippman because a neural network is known to work well for real-world classification problems, providing reduced error rates and selection of different practical characteristics. This is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson (US 20230224003 A1) in view of [Liu (US 20250132785 A1) or Kong (US 11750319 B1)] and Sherstobitov (WO 2022182264 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Jian (US 20230047993 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Bengtsson does not teach the RIS controller configured to group the one or more reflecting elements and the one or more sensing elements in an array to form a plurality of non-uniform sub-arrays; and create an operating schedule for the plurality of non-uniform sub-arrays to serve the one or more UEs in the wireless network.
Jian, in analogous art (abstract “intelligent reflecting devices”) teaches a RIS controller grouping one or more reflecting elements and one or more sensing elements in an array to form a plurality of non-uniform sub-arrays (Figs. 6A-C as described in para. [0105]-[0106], where SEG1-10 are non-uniform sub-arrays); and create an operating schedule for the plurality of non-uniform sub-arrays to serve the one or more UEs in the wireless network (para. [0104] “timing schedule that indicates to transmit signals for receipt by second nodes of a same node group in a same time slot, and to transmit signals for receipt by second nodes of different node groups in different time slots” and para. [0106] “first time slot” and “second time slot”).
Jian teaches that the arrays are formed to accommodate different node locations (para. [0102] “farther away”, “closer”) and target communication parameters (para. [0103] “target SINR, target capacity, target data rate”). It would have been obvious to further modify Bengtsson by implementing groupings of reflecting elements as taught by Jian in order to accommodate different node locations and target communication parameters. This is a matter of using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iwabuchi (US 20230276255 A1) teaches the elements of amended claims 1, 10, 19, and 20 at least in in Figs. 1 and 5 and para. [0070] “In uplink transmission, a direction from the wireless terminal 3 with respect to an installation direction of the dynamic reflector 5 to the dynamic reflector 5 is estimated as an incident angle at which a radio wave from the wireless terminal 3 is made incident”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, RESHA DESAI can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights