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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/18/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/18/2026 regarding prior art rejection priority dates have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the Applicant argues that the effective filing date of Taghizadeh Motlagh is 10/05/2023, the Examiner notes that the priority of Taghizadeh Motlagh is 10/05/2022 based on the provisional filing date. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the prior art rejection based on the teachings of Taghizadeh Motlagh is proper.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/18/2026 regarding prior art rejections of claim 13 and thereby dependents 14-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. While the prior art rejections of claims 13 and 16-17 are overcome in consideration of amendments, additional prior art rejections are presented below.
Additionally, regarding independent claim 13, the Examiner notes that amendments made do not incorporate all subject matter of claim 18 which was previously indicated as allowable. Notably, the steering vector is amended not to be generated based on measurements and does not include the additional combination of elements of claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taghizadeh Motlagh (US 20260019111 A1), hereinafter Taghizadeh Motlagh.
Regarding claim 1, Taghizadeh Motlagh discloses wireless circuitry comprising:
a receiver configured to receive wireless signals redirected by a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) (See at least Fig. 3, Items 225, 220, 230, [0092] “The RIS 225 reflects the incident waves 240A, 240B as reflected waves 250A, 250B towards one or more Rx nodes (e.g., the base station 220 or the UE 230)”); and
one or more processors (See at least [0234] “The various illustrative blocks and components described in connection with the disclosure herein may be implemented or performed with a general-purpose processor”) configured to detect, based on the wireless signals received by the receiver, an angle-of-arrival (AoA) of the wireless signals at the RIS (See at least [0092] “The Rx node may estimate the angle and/or angular segment of incidence towards the RIS”)
Regarding claim 2, Taghizadeh Motlagh, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Taghizadeh Motlagh additionally discloses
the wireless signals are at a frequency greater than or equal to 100 GHz (See at least [0074] “the wireless communications system 100 may support […] FR5 (114.25 GHz-300 GHz)”).
Regarding claim 3, Taghizadeh Motlagh, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Taghizadeh Motlagh additionally discloses
the wireless signals are incident upon the wireless circuitry in a first direction from the RIS at a first time and are incident upon the wireless circuitry in a second direction from the RIS at a second time (See at least Fig. 5, [0177] “As depicted, there is time-domain encoding of the RIS incidence, where the reflections 510 from the sensing area of interest 330 are directed towards the sensing Rx nodes associated with the RIS 225. The RIS reflection characteristic is configured differently at different time segments (e.g., T1 512 or T2 515)” Additionally, the Examiner notes that the ‘second direction’ and ‘second time’ have a broadest reasonable interpretation which includes the ‘second direction’ and ‘second time’ to be equal to the ‘first direction’ and ‘first time’ respectively).
Regarding claim 4, Taghizadeh Motlagh, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Taghizadeh Motlagh additionally discloses
the one or more processors being further configured to perform a first measurement of the wireless signals at the first time, to perform a second measurement of the wireless signals at the second time, and to detect the AoA based on the first measurement and the second measurement (See at least [0174] “one or more incidence angular segments at the RIS 225 can be identified according to the received sensing signal at the sensing Rx node at different time segments” The Examiner notes that ‘incidence angular segments’ corresponds to the claim term ‘AoA’. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the ‘second measurement’ and ‘second time’ have a broadest reasonable interpretation which includes the ‘second measurement’ and ‘second time’ to be equal to the ‘first measurement’ and ‘first time’ respectively).
Regarding claim 7, Taghizadeh Motlagh, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Taghizadeh Motlagh additionally discloses
at least some of the wireless signals are incident upon the RIS from a first external device, the one or more processors being further configured to detect a position of the first external device based on the AoA of the wireless signals at the RIS (See at least Fig. 3, “The processing entity can perform the following actions or operations: [0120] Receive a configuration from the sensing controller 310 for: […] sensing processing (e.g., an object presence, object position” Taghizadeh Motlagh discloses positioning of an external device (object 245). See also at least [0174] regarding angular segments and path propagation).
Regarding claim 8, Taghizadeh Motlagh, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7. Taghizadeh Motlagh additionally discloses
the one or more processors being further configured to detect, based on the wireless signals received by the receiver, an additional AoA of the wireless signals at the RIS (See at least [0092] “The RIS 225 reflects the incident waves 240A, 240B as reflected waves 250A, 250B towards one or more Rx nodes […] The Rx node may estimate the angle and/or angular segment of incidence towards the RIS” See also at least [0174] regarding angular segments and path propagation).
Regarding claim 9, Taghizadeh Motlagh, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8. Taghizadeh Motlagh additionally discloses
at least some of the wireless signals are incident upon the RIS from a second external device different from the first external device, the one or more processors being further configured to detect a position of the second external device based on the additional AoA of the wireless signals at the RIS (See at least [0088] “a radio sensing operation can include various elements or devices that facilitate the transfer of angle information for sensing signals between devices or nodes, which enables sensing nodes to perform accurate measurements of objects detected or sensed within target areas of a network environment.” Taghizadeh Motlagh illustrates an example of a single object in figure 3, however discloses that instead multiple different objects may be sensed in the same or similar manner.).
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.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20250385715 A1), hereinafter Huang, in view of Devoti (US 20250240646 A1), hereinafter Devoti.
Regarding claim 13, Huang, as shown below, discloses a wireless circuitry system comprising the following limitations:
performing measurements, using a receiver (See at least [0151] “For example, the receiver 704 can include one or more receiving antennas” See also [0127]), of wireless signals reflected by a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) (See at least [0174] “The RIS 1035 may also passively operate as a relay by reflecting signals (e.g., reflection sensing signals) from a target (e.g., target 1080) in a direction towards a network device (e.g., network device 1015)”) over a set of different reflected angles (See at least [0156] “RF sensing data can be used by at least one processor within the receiver 704 to calculate distances, angles of arrival (AOA), TDOA, angle of departure (AoD), or other characteristics that correspond to reflected waveforms”, [0201] “the RIS (e.g., RIS 1335 of FIG. 13B) can sweep the incident or reflection directions” Huang discloses that receivers are capable of determining a plurality of different reflected angles corresponding to target(s). Additionally, a plurality of receive antenna elements in an array would receive at different reflected angles from different RIS elements due to spacing); and
detecting, using one or more processors, the position of the one or more external devices (See at least Fig. 10B, [0173] “The RF sensing measurements of the target(s) (e.g., target 1080) can be used (e.g., by at least one processor(s) of the network device 1015) to determine one or more characteristics (e.g., speed, location, distance, movement, heading, size, and/or other characteristics) of the target(s) (e.g., target 1080)”) using a steering (See at least [0205] “The RIS 1335 can then sweep a beam 1355 (e.g., second loop beam sweep) containing the reflection sensing signal (e.g., signal 1365b) such that another network device (e.g., network device 1315b or network device 1325b) can receive the reflection sensing signal (e.g., signal 1350b).”)
Huang does not explicitly disclose
(See at least [0041] “To find such directions, embodiments of the present invention propose the use of a set of predefined RIS configurations, in particular probing codebook, whose corresponding steering vector maximizes” While Huang explicitly disclose electronic steering, Devoti discloses the explicit use of a steering vector.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wireless circuitry system disclosed by Huang with the steering vector system disclosed by Devoti. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly locate an angular position (See at least [0040] “The knowledge of such configurations is directly linked with the angular position of the communicating devices as they reveal the desired incoming and reflecting direction of the signal. Therefore, they can be promptly used to compute the RIS configuration that maximizes the reflected energy”).
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Huang and Devoti, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Huang additionally discloses
performing the measurements comprises receiving the wireless signals using one or more antennas and a corresponding receive chain (See at least [0151] “For example, the receiver 704 can include one or more receiving antennas”, [0101] “the one or more wireless transceivers 478 may include an RF front end”, See also [0127]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Devoti.
Regarding Claim 16, The combination of Huang and Devoti, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. The combination of Huang and Devoti, does not explicitly disclose receiving, using one or more additional antennas, additional wireless signals reflected by an additional RIS over an additional set of different reflected angles; and detecting, using one or more processors, the position of the one or more additional external devices based on the additional wireless signals received using the one or more additional antennas. The Examiner notes that while the claim element is not explicitly disclosed by Huang, Huang does disclose receiving, using the receiver via one or more antennas (See at least [0151] “For example, the receiver 704 can include one or more receiving antennas” See also [0127]), wireless signals reflected by a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) (See at least [0174] “The RIS 1035 may also passively operate as a relay by reflecting signals (e.g., reflection sensing signals) from a target (e.g., target 1080) in a direction towards a network device (e.g., network device 1015)”) over a set of different reflected angles (See at least [0156] “RF sensing data can be used by at least one processor within the receiver 704 to calculate distances, angles of arrival (AOA), TDOA, angle of departure (AoD), or other characteristics that correspond to reflected waveforms” Huang discloses that receivers are capable of determining a plurality of different reflected angles corresponding to target(s). Additionally, a plurality of receive antenna elements in an array which would receive at different reflected angles); and detecting, using one or more processors, the position of the one or more external devices based on the wireless signals received using the one or more antennas (See at least Fig. 10B, [0173] “The RF sensing measurements of the target(s) (e.g., target 1080) can be used (e.g., by at least one processor(s) of the network device 1015) to determine one or more characteristics (e.g., speed, location, distance, movement, heading, size, and/or other characteristics) of the target(s) (e.g., target 1080)”). Therefore, the combination of Huang and Devoti differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention conveys additional duplicative elements. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Huang and Devoti so that additional duplicative elements were incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that a mere duplication of parts is an obvious modification, see MPEP 2144.04. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Because no new and unexpected result is produced, the mere duplication of wireless data has no patentable significance. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve effectiveness by performing operations on multiple signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 5-6, 10-12, 14-15, and 18 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 5, 10, 14, and 18. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 5, generate a steering vector based on the first measurement and the second measurement, and detect the AoA based on the steering vector, and in claim 10, the wireless signals are conveyed using a first radio access technology (RAT), the one or more processors being further configured to program, using a second RAT different from the first RAT, the RIS to perform a sweep over different impedances of antenna elements on the RIS while the RIS redirects the wireless signals, and in claim 14, performing the measurements comprises: receiving, using the receiver via a first antenna of a phased antenna array, the wireless signals reflected by the RIS over the set of different reflected angles; and receiving, using the receiver via a second antenna of the phased antenna array, the wireless signals reflected by the RIS over the set of different angles, and in claim 18, detecting, based on the steering vector and a super-resolution algorithm, one or more angles-of-arrival of the wireless signals at the RIS; and detecting, based on the one or more angles-of-arrival, the position of the one or more external devices.
Accordingly, claims 5, 10, 14, and 18 are deemed to have allowable subject matter. Claims 6, 11-12, and 15 would also be considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Claims 5-6, 10-12, 14-15, and 18 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 19-20 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of independent claim 19. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 19, a phased antenna array having at least a first antenna and a second antenna, each configured to receive wireless signals reflected by a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) while the RIS sweeps over a set of different reflected angles at different times.
Accordingly, independent claim 19 is deemed allowable. Claim 20 is allowed by virtue of their dependence on allowable independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 H 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights