DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 13, 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELLENBECK (US 2023/0370863) in view of ELSHAFIE et al (US 2024/0187042)
Regarding claim 1, 20, ELLENBECK (US 2023/0370863) discloses wireless communication method, comprising:
receiving, by a smart node from one of a plurality of user equipment, a first message including control information (ELLENBECK: ¶9, ¶124, ¶118, the UE sends to the RIS and the RIS (smart node) receives from the UE, instructions having control information), wherein the smart node comprises a smart controller and a planar surface (ELLENBECK: Fig. 10, ¶81, controller with a planar substrate surface).
ELLENBECK remains silent regarding the receiving being from a plurality of UEs; and selecting, by the smart node, a first UE based on priorities of a plurality of authorized UEs.
However, ELSHAFIE et al (US 2024/0187042) discloses the receiving being from a plurality of UEs (ELSHAFIE: ¶138, ¶122, plurality of UEs i.e. first device and second device transmit respective messages with control information); and selecting, by the smart node, a first UE based on priorities of a plurality of authorized UEs (ELSHAFIE: ¶146, ¶149, the RIS selects one of the two UEs based on the priorities of the UEs; the UEs are authorized users (¶67, ¶46)).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK would have been motivated to use the teachings of ELSHAFIE as it provides a technique to resolve conflicts between devices (¶11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK with teachings of ELSHAFIE in order to improve conflict resolution between contending UEs to take control of the RIS.
Regarding claim 2, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the control information includes at least one of: a plurality of phase and amplitude information of the smart node, valid timing information, on/off information of the smart node, or an operation mode of the smart node (ELLENBECK: ¶82-¶83, ¶114, ¶103, ¶106-107, phase and amplitude/magnitude of the reflected/re-radiated signals are controlled by the UE by controlling the RIS configuration through the control RAT message (instruction to control RIS) ; the control RAT message also indicate operating modes include scattering, absorption, reflection and diffraction, etc).
Regarding claim 3, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of the phase and amplitude information of the smart node can be indicated explicitly or implicitly (ELLENBECK: ¶82-¶83, ¶114, ¶103, ¶106-107, phase and amplitude/magnitude of the reflected/re-radiated signals are controlled by the UE by controlling the RIS configuration through the control RAT message (instruction to control RIS), at least implicitly).
Regarding claim 7, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 2, wherein the operation mode of the smart node comprises at least one of: scatter, absorption, reflection, diffraction, receiving, amplifying, or transmission (ELLENBECK: ¶82, operation mode of the smart node (RIS node) is controlled by the instruction of UE via control RAT message; operating modes include scattering, absorption, reflection and diffraction, etc).
Regarding claim 13, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 1, further comprising: setting configuration, by the smart node, based on the control information which corresponds to a first one of the plurality of UEs (ELLENBECK: ¶114, the UE device responsible of controlling the RIS sends control information; the RIS is configured by using the control information; the UE device among more than one UE devices and other devices such as the AP).
Regarding claim 18, 19, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method, comprising: sending, by one of a plurality of UEs to a smart node, a first message including control information (ELLENBECK: ¶9, ¶124, ¶118, the UE sends to the RIS and the RIS (smart node) receives from the UE, instructions having control information), wherein the smart node comprises a smart controller and a planar surface (ELLENBECK: Fig. 10, ¶81, controller with a planar substrate surface).
ELLENBECK remains silent regarding the receiving being from a plurality of UEs; and selecting, by the smart node, a first UE based on priorities of a plurality of authorized UEs.
However, ELSHAFIE et al (US 2024/0187042) discloses the receiving being from a plurality of UEs (ELSHAFIE: ¶138, ¶122, plurality of UEs i.e. first device and second device transmit respective messages with control information); and selecting, by the smart node, a first UE based on priorities of a plurality of authorized UEs (ELSHAFIE: ¶146, ¶149, the RIS selects one of the two UEs based on the priorities of the UEs; the UEs are authorized users (¶67, ¶46)).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK would have been motivated to use the teachings of ELSHAFIE as it provides a technique to resolve conflicts between devices (¶11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK with teachings of ELSHAFIE in order to improve conflict resolution between contending UEs to take control of the RIS.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of PAN et al (US 2025/0337459)
Regarding claim 4, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 2,
ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding, however, PAN et al (US 2025/0337459) discloses the first message having the valid timing information, wherein the valid timing information is in a first format that has a number of time units (PAN: ¶149, ¶165, validity time period in the control information indicating slots/time units the control information is value).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of PAN as it provides a way to avoid stale control information which might not contain optimal parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of PAN in order to optimum function of the RIS.
Regarding claim 5, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 2,
ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding, however, PAN et al (US 2025/0337459) discloses the first message having the valid timing information, the valid timing information is in a second format that has a starting time and a time length (PAN: ¶149, validity time period in the control information indicating, implicitly the starting time and the length of valid time period).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of PAN as it provides a way to avoid stale control information which might not contain optimal parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of PAN in order to optimum function of the RIS.
Regarding claim 6, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 2,
ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding, however, PAN et al (US 2025/0337459) discloses the first message having the valid timing information, wherein the valid timing information is in a third format that has a starting time and an ending time (PAN: ¶149, ¶165, validity time period in the control information indicating, implicitly the starting time and the ending time).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of PAN as it provides a way to avoid stale control information which might not contain optimal parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of PAN in order to optimum function of the RIS.
Claim(s) 8 -12, 14, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of WALKER et al (US 2024/0356625).
Regarding claim 8, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the smart node, a second message including first discovery information before receiving the first message (ELLENBECK: ¶99, upon discovering RIS, the AP sends configuration for the RIS (second message)).
ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding the second message including first authorized information.
However, WALKER et al (US 2024/0356625) discloses the second message including first authorized information (WALKER: ¶190, ¶121, the discover/registration message includes a list of UEs identifiers (Identities); this message is a message before any control message (e.g. claimed first message)).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of WALKER as it provides a way to improve authentication by securing use of resources for authorized operators only, thereby improving security of the network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of WALKER in order to improve security
Regarding claim 9, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE modified by WALKER discloses wireless communication method of claim 8, wherein the second message is received by the smart node from a wireless communication node or an operations administration and maintenance (OAM) unit (ELLENBECK: ¶99, ¶102, upon discovering RIS, the AP sends configuration for the RIS (second message); AP being the wireless communication node).
Regarding claim 10, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE modified by WALKER discloses wireless communication method of claim 8, wherein the first authorized information includes at least one of:
a sequence of identification of a plurality of UEs, a sequence of time resource grant information that corresponds to the one or the plurality UEs, a sequence of frequency resource grant information that corresponds to the one or the plurality of UEs, or priorities of the plurality of UEs (WALKER: ¶190, ¶121, the priority list of the controller devices (UEs e.g. BSs) are received by the RIS).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of WALKER as it provides a way to improve authentication by securing use of resources for authorized operators only, thereby improving security of the network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of WALKER in order to improve security
Regarding claim 11, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the one or the plurality of UEs receive, from wireless communication nodes or an OAM unit, a third message including a discovery information before transmitting the first message to a plurality of smart nodes including the smart node (ELLENBECK: ¶99, Fig. 11, upon discovering RIS, the AP sends configuration for the RIS (second message); this is before any control information/instruction sent to the RIS from the controlling UE; ELSHAFIE: ¶45, a plurality of RISs).
ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding the second message including second authorized information.
However, WALKER et al (US 2024/0356625) discloses the second message including first authorized information (WALKER: ¶190, ¶121, the discover/registeration message includes a list of UEs identifiers (Identities); this message is a message before any control message (e.g. claimed first message)).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of WALKER as it provides a way to improve authentication by securing use of resources for authorized operators only, thereby improving security of the network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of WALKER in order to improve security
Regarding claim 12, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE modified by WALKER discloses wireless communication method of claim 11, wherein the second authorized information includes at least one of: a sequence of identification of the plurality of smart nodes, a sequence of frequency resource information that corresponds to the plurality of smart nodes, or a sequence of time resource information that corresponds to the plurality of smart nodes (WALKER: ¶190, ¶121, the priority list of the controller devices (UEs e.g. BSs) are received by the RIS).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of WALKER as it provides a way to improve authentication by securing use of resources for authorized operators only, thereby improving security of the network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of WALKER in order to improve security
Regarding claim 14, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication of claim 13, wherein the first UE is an UE with established communication link (ELLENBECK: ¶91, Fig. 12, Fig. 10, Fig. 8, the first communication device (UE) is part of the communication network Fig. 10 and Fig. 8).
ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding the device being authorized.
However, WALKER discloses the device being authorized (WALKER: ¶120, authentication of the sender of the control signal is performed making the controller of the RIS an authorized device).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of WALKER as it provides a way to improve authentication by securing use of resources for authorized operators only, thereby improving security of the network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of WALKER in order to improve security
Regarding claim 17, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 13, further comprising: the first UE resending the control information (ELLENBECK: ¶126, ¶118, an update control instruction is sent again (subsequent period) by the UE device 10 controlling the RIS to update the set of beams); and determining, by the smart node, to update the control information (ELLENBECK: ¶126, ¶118, an update control instruction is sent again (subsequent period) by the UE device 10 controlling the RIS to update the set of beams).
ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding checking an authorization validity of the first UE.
However, WALKER discloses checking an authorization validity of the first UE (WALKER: ¶120, any device that sends a control signal, the validation of that device is checked by using the identity information in the control signal).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of WALKER as it provides a way to improve authentication by securing use of resources for authorized operators only, thereby improving security of the network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of WALKER in order to improve security
Claim(s) 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of SAHRAEI et al (US 2024/0235622).
Regarding claim 16, ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE discloses wireless communication method of claim 13, as above.
ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding, sending, by the smart node to the first UE, a fourth message including feedback information.
SAHRAEI et al (US 2024/0235622) discloses regarding, sending, by the smart node to the first UE, a fourth message including feedback information (SAHRAEI: ¶130, ¶133, feedback signal sent by RIS).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of SAHRAEI as it provides a closed loop control operation of the RIS to perform optimally. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK modified by ELSHAFIE with teachings of SAHRAEI in order to use RIS optimally (¶105).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
816
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Applicants take a position that ELLENBECK or WALKER does not disclose … “a smart node selecting a first UE”… “based on priorities of authorized UE…”. Examiner respectfully submits that ELLENBECK expressly discloses that a smart node (RIS with a controller and planar surface, see Fig. 10 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
294
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0030] FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of an illustrative communications system 4 (sometimes referred to herein as communications network 4) for conveying wireless data between communications terminals. Communications system 4 may include network nodes (e.g., communications terminals). The network nodes may include user equipment (UE) such as one or more UE devices 10…
This smart node receives messages from the UE. There is a plurality of UEs
ELLENBECK remains silent regarding the receiving being from a plurality of UEs; and selecting, by the smart node, a first UE based on priorities of a plurality of authorized UEs.
However, newly cited reference, ELSHAFIE et al (US 2024/0187042), discloses the receiving being from a plurality of UEs (ELSHAFIE: ¶138, ¶122, plurality of UEs i.e. first device and second device transmit respective messages with control information); and selecting, by the smart node, a first UE based on priorities of a plurality of authorized UEs (ELSHAFIE: ¶146, ¶149, the RIS selects one of the two UEs based on the priorities of the UEs; the UEs are authorized users (¶67, ¶46)).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELLENBECK would have been motivated to use the teachings of ELSHAFIE as it provides a technique to resolve conflicts between devices (¶11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ELLENBECK with teachings of ELSHAFIE in order to improve conflict resolution between contending UEs to take control of the RIS.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights