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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 06/17/2025 and 02/23/2024 comply with all application rules and regulations. Therefore, the information referred to therein have been considered.
Specification Objection
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the
disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a
separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the
disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the
full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in
the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
• Claim 4 line 3, “transmitting the report comprising” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10, 14, 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat et al. (US- 20240388326- A1) in view of Yang et al. (US-20220408277-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haghighat teaches a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1A and [0005] illustrate wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) that may be used within the wireless communications, where WTRU can be a UE as stated in [0021]), comprising: transmitting, to a base station, an indication of a plurality of beams received by the UE (Fig. 4A and [0104] states, first, “For each step, a WTRU 102 may receive a different measurement configuration. As shown in FIG. 4A, beams and/or reference signals transmitted by the gNB 180”, then the UE can send an indication of the beams that received from the BS as stated in [0118] “A WTRU 102 may perform signal strength measurements (e.g., RSRP or the like) and may indicate one or more preferred beams by reporting one or more corresponding indices (e.g., RS indices) to the gNB 180 (e.g., CRI, SSBRI, SRI, SRS resource set, panel index, etc.) such as by using a preconfigured uplink resource.” [0147] lines 15-18 “the WTRU 102 may transmit a RS (e.g., SRS) to assist the gNB 180 in determination of the relative delays between each beam of any (e.g., each) of the reported beam-pairs.” That implies the UE can transmit, to the BS, an indication of a plurality of beams); receiving, based at least in part on transmitting the indication, a message indicating at least a first resource set associated with one or more first beams from the plurality of beams and a second resource set associated with one or more second beams from the plurality of beams (Abstract states “The WTRU may receive a configuration which associates particular beams with particular reference signal resources. “ [0171] describes that one or more resource set can be configured for the UE which indicated by the higher layer parameters CSI-ResourceConfig. [0243] states “the WTRU 102 may receive information indicating a configuration of the plurality of beams to be transmitted from the base station. As an example, the configuration may be a mapping of the plurality of beams.” That confirms the UE can receive a message from the BS to indicate a resource set associated with different beams from the plurality of beams); each pair including a first individual beam of the one or more first beams and a second individual beam of the one or more second beams (Fig. 5, [0202] states “the reported first and second subsets of the RSs may represent beams selected according to beam selection mode (b) as described herein” [0141], lines 4-8 describes that the UE can perform measurement on each pair from both sets to determine the properties between them. [0125]-[0131] indicate how the WTRU 102 is to determine the (e.g., preferred) paired beam information from the joint beam selection among the set of beams for communicate. [0213] describes the reporting of the beam pairs, where these pairs selected based on signal quality and delay [0252]); and communicating with the base station via a selected beam of the one or more first beams or the one or more second beams (Abstract states “As another example, the WTRU may operate to facilitate selection of a beam pair which may include a first beam transmitted from the base station and a second beam transmitted from the base station and reflected by the IRS to the WTRU.” That implies the UE can communicate with the BS using the selected beam from either the first beam or the second beam. [0102] describes different modes of beam pairing may be considered where each mode may be selected and used based on system parameters and/or conditions. [0114] and [0145] illustrate the process of the selected beams which can be used for communication between the UE and BS).
Haghighat fails to teach transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams.
However, Yang teaches transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams ([0073] states “The measurement results of the M beams include at least one of the following: signal quality of the M beams and a channel correlation between the M beams.” [0081] states “at least one of the signal quality measurement results of the N beams and the channel correlation measurement result between the N beams is reported”, where N beams is in M beams, [0010]. [0097] describes reporting these measurements results, correlation measurement result, based on whether the N beams have a QCL relationship, to the BS/network node.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 2, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 1.
Haghighat teaches further comprising: receiving a second signal via each of the one or more first beams and the one or more second beams in accordance with the first resource set and the second resource set (Fig. 5 describes that the UE receives signals via both the first beam (reflected by IRS) and the second beam (directly transmitted by the BS). [0136] and [0155] lines 3-8 states “As shown in FIG. 5, a WTRU 102 may receive information indicating a configuration for a first set of reference signals (e.g., associated with a first set of beams intended for transmission to an IRS) and/or a second set of reference signals (e.g., associated with a second set of beams intended for direct transmission to the WTRU 102).” [0171] states “WTRU 102 may be configured with one or more NZP CSI-RS resource set configuration(s) as indicated by the higher layer parameters CSI-ResourceConfig, and NZP-CSI-RS-ResourceSet.” That indicates the CSI configuration set can be considered as a type of resource set, where CSI Configuration set refer to configuration of CSI -RS resources that can be used for CSI reporting, as described in [0171]); and performing channel estimation for each of the one or more first beams and the one or more second beams based at least in part on the received second signals ([0138] lines 11-14 states “the WTRU 102 may estimate the delay for any (e.g., each) of the beams based on an observed delay from the estimated channel using the received reference signals configured in sets P and Q.” That implies the UE can receive the reference signals associated with these beams and perform channel estimation to measure the signal quality).
Regarding claim 3, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 2, further comprising:
Haghighat fails to teach determining the level of correlation between the individual beams in each pair based at least in part on the channel estimation of the one or more first beams and the one or more second beams.
However, Yang teaches determining the level of correlation between the individual beams in each pair based at least in part on the channel estimation of the one or more first beams and the one or more second beams ([0073] states “The measurement results of the M beams include at least one of the following: signal quality of the M beams and a channel correlation between the M beams.” and [0107] states “in a case that measurement results of the N beams include a channel correlation measurement result between the N beams, if a channel correlation between the N beams is greater than a first threshold, the N beams have a QCL relationship.” That implies the channel correlation, which is derived from the channel estimation, can be used to determine the relationship between beams. [0107]-[0109] also describe if the channel correlation between tow beams (pair) exceeds a certain threshold, the beams are considered to have a QCL relationship. In other words, the channel correlation (derived from the channel estimation) can be directly applied to determine QCL relationship).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 4, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the report further comprises:
Haghighat fails to teach transmitting the report comprising an indication of the level of correlation for a top number of beam pairs associated with a highest level of correlation
However, Yang teaches transmitting the report comprising an indication of the level of correlation for a top number of beam pairs associated with a highest level of correlation ([0117] states “in the case that the N beams have a QCL relationship, the target measurement result includes: top K signal quality measurement results selected from the combined measurement result and signal quality measurement results of other M-N beams, where K is a positive integer.” [0120], [0294], and claim 9 indicate that the report can include the top K signal quality measurement results (correlation levels) for the beams with highest correlation, as stated in [0115] “the measurement result may be also a calculation result such as a maximum value, a minimum value, or an average value of the measurement results of the N beams” which means the highest and levels are included in the results).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 5, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 4
Haghighat further teaches wherein the level of correlation comprises a pair of resource indices for each of the top number of beam pairs, a first resource index associated with the first resource set and a second resource index associated with the second resource set ([0118] states “A WTRU 102 may perform signal strength measurements (e.g., RSRP or the like) and may indicate one or more preferred beams by reporting one or more corresponding indices (e.g., RS indices) to the gNB 180 (e.g., CRI, SSBRI, SRI, SRS resource set, panel index, etc.) such as by using a preconfigured uplink resource.”[0118]-[0120] show some examples for one or more such indices. [0127] states “The WTRU 102 may report information indicating the pair of {CRI #1, repetition index #2}, such as where the paired beam information of {CRI #1, repetition index #2} shows a preferred outcome of the joint beam selection among the set of beams. The paired beam information may be transmitted along with information indicating the one or more corresponding beam quality metrics. “that implies resource index associated with the resource set. Fig. 5 and [0141] describe a WTRU 102 may determine the preferred (e.g., best/top pair or pairs of beams based on measured power and/or relative delay of the received Q and P beams. For example, a WTRU 102 may determine one or more best beam pairs (the top beam pairs) by determining a beam pair (e.g., one of the Q beams and one of the P beams), such as beams 418 and 420, that exhibit a highest total power and least relative delay with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 6, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 4, further comprising:
Haghighat further teaches ranking levels of correlations for each pair from the highest level of correlation to a lowest level of correlation, wherein the indication comprises the ranked list ([0142] describes using rank list as a criterion for select the preferred (best) beam pairs, either per individual beam or for all the channels that supported via beam pair. For example, beam pair with ranks of 1 and 3 or beam pair with ranks of 2 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 1.
Haghighat further teaches wherein the report comprises a measured level of correlation between the individual beams in each pair ([0235] describe the measurements can includes some metrics which can be considered as signal quality measurements, where the paired beam exhibit similar signal quality levels, it may correlate [0127]. [0138] illustrates that the WTRU 102 may estimate the delay for any (e.g., each) of the beams based on the transmission of a signal with a low correlation property, [0201] lines 17-25, and [0248]).
Regarding claim 8, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the indication of the plurality of beams further comprises:
Haghighat fails to teach measuring a plurality of signals received by the UE, each signal of the plurality of signals received over a different beam of the plurality of beams, wherein the indication of the plurality of beams is based at least in part on the measuring and comprises a number of strongest measured signals.
However, Yang teaches measuring a plurality of signals received by the UE, each signal of the plurality of signals received over a different beam of the plurality of beams ([0064], lines 13-16 states “measurement on the signals sent by the M beams includes measurement on those directly sent by the beams of the network device to the terminal.” and [0065], lines 1-6 states “measurement is performed on reference signals associated with the M beams to obtain the measurement results of the M beams. The reference signals include but are not limited to SSB, channel state indication reference signal (CSI-RS), or demodulation reference signal (DMRS).” That means these reference signals are transmitted over different beams for measurement purposes, [0005]), wherein the indication of the plurality of beams is based at least in part on the measuring ([0074] states “The reporting first information to the network device based on measurement results of part or all of the M beams may be: determining the first information based on the measurement results of part or all of the M beams” which implies the plurality of beams is based on the performed measurements, as stated in [0139], lines 9-18) and comprises a number of strongest measured signals ([0117] and [0294] state “the target measurement result includes: top K signal quality measurement results selected from the combined measurement result and signal quality measurement results of other M-N beams, where K is a positive integer” where K is a positive integer the represent the number of strongest measured signals in the report, [0120] describes the goal behind that is to optimize resource allocation and improve the quality of the communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 9, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 8, wherein transmitting the indication of the plurality of beams further comprises:
Haghighat fails to teach transmitting a measurement associated with each of the plurality of beams.
However, Yang teaches transmitting a measurement associated with each of the plurality of beams ([0064], lines 13-16 states “measurement on the signals sent by the M beams includes measurement on those directly sent by the beams of the network device to the terminal.” and [0074] states “The reporting first information to the network device based on measurement results of part or all of the M beams may be: determining the first information based on the measurement results of part or all of the M beams” that indicate transmitting a measurement associated with each of the plurality of beams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 10, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 8.
Haghighat further teaches wherein transmitting the indication of the plurality of beams is based at least in part on the plurality of beams being associated with a measured signal greater than a threshold ([0129] states “If a beam quality for the paired beam information (e.g., {CRI #2, repetition index #5}) is determined (e.g., calculated) to be higher than the threshold value, the WTRU 102 may report paired beam information indicating {CRI #2, repetition index #5} (e.g., along with the corresponding beam quality metrics).” That implies the UE can report the preferred beams based on signal quality metric being greater than a threshold).
Regarding claim 14, Haghighat teaches a method for wireless communications at a base station (Fig. 1A and [0022] describe a wireless communications systems 100 may include a base station 114a and/or a base station 114b that communicate wirelessly with the UEs), comprising: receiving, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of a plurality of beams received by the UE (Fig. 4A, [0104] states, first, “For each step, a WTRU 102 may receive a different measurement configuration. As shown in FIG. 4A, beams and/or reference signals transmitted by the gNB 180” and then the UE can send an indication of the beams that received from the BS as stated in [0118] “A WTRU 102 may perform signal strength measurements (e.g., RSRP or the like) and may indicate one or more preferred beams by reporting one or more corresponding indices (e.g., RS indices) to the gNB 180 (e.g., CRI, SSBRI, SRI, SRS resource set, panel index, etc.) such as by using a preconfigured uplink resource.” and [0147] lines 15-18 states “the WTRU 102 may transmit a RS (e.g., SRS) to assist the gNB 180 in determination of the relative delays between each beam of any (e.g., each) of the reported beam-pairs.” That implies the BS can receive, from the UE, an indication of a plurality of beams); transmitting, based at least in part on receiving the indication, a message indicating at least a first resource set associated with one or more first beams from the plurality of beams and a second resource set associated with one or more second beams from the plurality of beams (Abstract states “The WTRU may receive, from the BS, a configuration which associates particular beams with particular reference signal resources. “ and [0171] describes that one or more resource set can be configured for the UE which indicated by the higher layer parameters CSI-ResourceConfig. [0243] states “the WTRU 102 may receive information indicating a configuration of the plurality of beams to be transmitted from the base station. As an example, the configuration may be a mapping of the plurality of beams.” That confirms the UE can receive a message from the BS to indicate a resource set associated with different beams from the plurality of beams); each pair including a first individual beam of the one or more first beams and a second individual beam of the one or more second beams (Fig. 5, [0202] states “the reported first and second subsets of the RSs may represent beams selected according to beam selection mode (b) as described herein” [0141], lines 4-8 describes that the UE can perform measurement on each pair from both sets to determine the properties between them. [0125]-[0131] indicate how the WTRU 102 is to determine the (e.g., preferred) paired beam information from the joint beam selection among the set of beams for communicate. [0213] describes the reporting of the beam pairs, where these pairs selected based on signal quality and delay [0252]); and communicating with the UE via a selected beam of the one or more first beams or the one or more second beams (Abstract states “As another example, the WTRU may operate to facilitate selection of a beam pair which may include a first beam transmitted from the base station and a second beam transmitted from the base station and reflected by the IRS to the WTRU.” That implies the UE can communicate with the BS using the selected beam from either the first beam or the second beam. [0102] describes different modes of beam pairing may be considered where each mode may be selected and used based on system parameters and/or conditions. [0114] and [0145] illustrate the process of the beams which can be used for communication between the UE and BS).
Haghighat fails to teach receiving a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams.
However, Yang teaches receiving a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams ([0073] states “The measurement results of the M beams include at least one of the following: signal quality of the M beams and a channel correlation between the M beams.” [0081] states “at least one of the signal quality measurement results of the N beams and the channel correlation measurement result between the N beams is reported”, where N beams is in M beams [0010]. [0097] describes reporting these measurements results, correlation measurement result, based on whether the N beams have a QCL relationship, to the BS/network node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 21, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 14.
Haghighat fails to teach further comprising: receiving a plurality of reports indicative of the level of correlation between pairs of individual beams identifying one or more individual beams indicated in more than one of the plurality of reports; and determining to prohibit communications via the one or more individual beams based at least in part on the one or more individual beams being indicated in the more than one of the plurality of reports.
However, Yang teaches further comprising: receiving a plurality of reports indicative of the level of correlation between pairs of individual beams ([0073] states “the measurement results of the M beams include at least one of the following: signal quality of the M beams and a channel correlation between the M beams.” That implies the reports that can be received by BS include the correlation measurements between the beams to determine whether the beams have a QCL relationship which is a key parameter as stated in [0215] and claim 20); identifying one or more individual beams indicated in more than one of the plurality of reports ([0074] states “The reporting first information to the network device based on measurement results of part or all of the M beams may be: determining the first information based on the measurement results of part or all of the M beams” which implies the plurality of beams is based on the performed measurements, as stated in [0139], lines 9-18. [0117] and [0294] state “the target measurement result includes: top K signal quality measurement results selected from the combined measurement result and signal quality measurement results of other M-N beams, where K is a positive integer” where K is a positive integer the represent the number of strongest measured signals in the report, [0120] describes the goal behind that is to optimize resource allocation and improve the quality of the communication); and determining to prohibit communications via the one or more individual beams based at least in part on the one or more individual beams being indicated in the more than one of the plurality of reports ([0120] states “the top K signal quality measurement results are selected from the combined measurement result and signal quality measurement results of other M-N beams, and therefore the reported measurement results are more conducive to scheduling by the network device.” Which implies the only top K beams can be used for communications and prohibit the other beams that not included to avoid the poor signal quality, [0175]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 22, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 21, further comprising:
Haghighat fails to teach determining a reconfigurable intelligent surface associated with the one or more individual beams; and transmitting a message to the reconfigurable intelligent surface prohibiting use of the one or more individual beams by the reconfigurable intelligent surface.
However, Yang teaches determining a reconfigurable intelligent surface associated with the one or more individual beams ([0072] lines 3-7 describes the RIS (or the first node as stated in [0052] lines 11-17) is responsible for forwarding the signals from the network device (BS) to the terminal or vice versa. [0120] lines 1-3 illustrates the RIS is associated with specific beams and can configured by the BS); and transmitting a message to the reconfigurable intelligent surface prohibiting use of the one or more individual beams by the reconfigurable intelligent surface ([0348] states “the N beams include beams whose signals are forwarded by a first node and beams whose signals are not forwarded by the first node.” That implies the RIS is not allowed to transmit these signals (beams) according to the information received from the BS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 23, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 14.
Haghighat fails to teach wherein receiving the report further comprises :receiving the report comprising an indication of the level of correlation for a top number of beam pairs associated with a highest level of correlation.
However, Yang teaches wherein receiving the report further comprises :receiving the report comprising an indication of the level of correlation for a top number of beam pairs associated with a highest level of correlation ([0117] states “in the case that the N beams have a QCL relationship, the target measurement result includes: top K signal quality measurement results selected from the combined measurement result and signal quality measurement results of other M-N beams, where K is a positive integer.” [0120], [0294], and claim 9 indicate that the report can include the top K signal quality measurement results (correlation levels) for the beams with highest correlation, as stated in [0115] “and the measurement result may be also a calculation result such as a maximum value, a minimum value, or an average value of the measurement results of the N beams”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 24, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 23.
Haghighat further teaches wherein the level of correlation comprises a resource index associated with the first resource set or the second resource set for each of the top number of beam pairs ([0118] states “A WTRU 102 may perform signal strength measurements (e.g., RSRP or the like) and may indicate one or more preferred beams by reporting one or more corresponding indices (e.g., RS indices) to the gNB 180 (e.g., CRI, SSBRI, SRI, SRS resource set, panel index, etc.) such as by using a preconfigured uplink resource.”[0118]-[0120] show some examples for one or more such indices. [0127] states “The WTRU 102 may report information indicating the pair of {CRI #1, repetition index #2}, such as where the paired beam information of {CRI #1, repetition index #2} shows a preferred outcome of the joint beam selection among the set of beams. The paired beam information may be transmitted along with information indicating the one or more corresponding beam quality metrics. That implies the report can include resource index associated with the resource set “ Fig. 5 and [0141] describe a WTRU 102 may determine the preferred (e.g., best/top pair or pairs of beams based on measured power and/or relative delay of the received Q and P beams. For example, a WTRU 102 may determine one or more best beam pairs (the top beam pairs) by determining a beam pair (e.g., one of the Q beams and one of the P beams), such as beams 418 and 420, that exhibit a highest total power and least relative delay with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 25, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 14.
Haghighat further teaches wherein the report comprises a measured level of correlation between the individual beams in each pair ([0235] describe the measurements can includes some metrics which can be considered as signal quality measurements, where the paired beam exhibit similar signal quality levels, it may correlate [0127]. [0138] illustrates that the WTRU 102 may estimate the delay for any (e.g., each) of the beams based on the transmission of a signal with a low correlation property, [0201] lines 17-25, and [0248]).
Regarding claim 26, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 14.
Haghighat fails to teach wherein receiving the indication of the plurality of beams further comprises: receiving a measurement associated with each of the plurality of beams
However, Yang teaches wherein receiving the indication of the plurality of beams further comprises: receiving a measurement associated with each of the plurality of beams. ([0064], lines 13-16 states “measurement on the signals sent by the M beams includes measurement on those directly sent by the beams of the network device to the terminal.” and [0074] states “The reporting first information to the network device based on measurement results of part or all of the M beams may be: determining the first information based on the measurement results of part or all of the M beams” that indicate transmitting a measurement associated with each of the plurality of beams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 27, Haghighat teaches an apparatus for wireless communications (Fig. 1 and the abstract describe a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) that is in communication with a base station and/or an intelligent reflecting surface (IRS)), comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to (Fig. 1B, [0034]-[0035] and [0271] illustrate the WTRU (UE) may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122, a, non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132, and the computer-readable instructions stored on a computer-readable medium. The computer-readable instructions may be executed by a processor of a mobile unit, a network element, and/or any other computing device): transmit, to a base station, an indication of a plurality of beams received by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 4A and [0104] states, first, “For each step, a WTRU 102 may receive a different measurement configuration. As shown in FIG. 4A, beams and/or reference signals transmitted by the gNB 180” and then the UE can send an indication of the beams that received from the BS as stated in [0118] “A WTRU 102 may perform signal strength measurements (e.g., RSRP or the like) and may indicate one or more preferred beams by reporting one or more corresponding indices (e.g., RS indices) to the gNB 180 (e.g., CRI, SSBRI, SRI, SRS resource set, panel index, etc.) such as by using a preconfigured uplink resource.” and [0147] lines 15-18 “the WTRU 102 may transmit a RS (e.g., SRS) to assist the gNB 180 in determination of the relative delays between each beam of any (e.g., each) of the reported beam-pairs.” That implies the UE can transmit, to the BS, an indication of a plurality of beams); receive, based at least in part on transmitting the indication, a message indicating at least a first resource set associated with one or more first beams from the plurality of beams and a second resource set associated with one or more second beams from the plurality of beams (Abstract states “The WTRU may receive a configuration which associates particular beams with particular reference signal resources. “ and [0171] describes that one or more resource set can be configured for the UE which indicated by the higher layer parameters CSI-ResourceConfig. [0243] states “the WTRU 102 may receive information indicating a configuration of the plurality of beams to be transmitted from the base station. As an example, the configuration may be a mapping of the plurality of beams.” That confirms the UE can receive a message from the BS to indicate a resource set associated with different beams from the plurality of beams); each pair including a first individual beam of the one or more first beams and a second individual beam of the one or more second beams (Fig. 5, [0202] states “the reported first and second subsets of the RSs may represent beams selected according to beam selection mode (b) as described herein” [0141], lines 4-8 describes that the UE can perform measurement on each pair from both sets to determine the properties between them. [0125]-[0131] indicate how the WTRU 102 is to determine the (e.g., preferred) paired beam information from the joint beam selection among the set of beams for communicate. [0213] describes the reporting of the beam pairs, where these pairs selected based on signal quality and delay [0252]); and communicate with the base station via a selected beam of the one or more first beams or the one or more second beams (Abstract states “As another example, the WTRU may operate to facilitate selection of a beam pair which may include a first beam transmitted from the base station and a second beam transmitted from the base station and reflected by the IRS to the WTRU.” That implies the UE can communicate with the BS using the selected beam from either the first beam or the second beam. [0102] describes different modes of beam pairing may be considered where each mode may be selected and used based on system parameters and/or conditions. [0114] and [0145] illustrate the process of the beams which can be used for communication between the UE and BS).
Haghighat fails to teach transmit a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams.
However, Yang teaches transmit a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams ([0073] states “The measurement results of the M beams include at least one of the following: signal quality of the M beams and a channel correlation between the M beams.” [0081] states “at least one of the signal quality measurement results of the N beams and the channel correlation measurement result between the N beams is reported”, where N beams is in M beams [0010]. [0097] describes reporting these measurements results, based on whether the N beams have a QCL relationship, to the BS/network node.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 28, Haghighat and Yang teach the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
Haghighat further teaches receive a second signal via each of the one or more first beams and the one or more second beams in accordance with the first resource set and the second resource set (Fig. 5 describes that the UE receives signals via both the first beam (reflected by IRS) and the second beam (directly transmitted by the BS). [0136] and [0155] lines 3-8 states “As shown in FIG. 5, a WTRU 102 may receive information indicating a configuration for a first set of reference signals (e.g., associated with a first set of beams intended for transmission to an IRS) and/or a second set of reference signals (e.g., associated with a second set of beams intended for direct transmission to the WTRU 102).” [0171] states “WTRU 102 may be configured with one or more NZP CSI-RS resource set configuration(s) as indicated by the higher layer parameters CSI-ResourceConfig, and NZP-CSI-RS-ResourceSet.” That indicates the CSI configuration set can be considered as a type of resource set, where CSI Configuration set refer to configuration of CSI -RS resources that can be used for CSI reporting, as described in [0171]); and perform channel estimation for each of the one or more first beams and the one or more second beams based at least in part on the received second signals ([0138] lines 11-14 states “the WTRU 102 may estimate the delay for any (e.g., each) of the beams based on an observed delay from the estimated channel using the received reference signals configured in sets P and Q.” that implies the UE can receive the reference signals associated with these beams and perform channel estimation to measure the signal quality).
Regarding claim 29, Haghighat teaches an apparatus for wireless communications (Fig. 1A and [0022] describe a wireless communications systems 100 may include a base station 114a and/or a base station 114b that communicate wirelessly with the UEs), comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to ([0018] and [0266]-[0268] describe the a processor in association with software may be used to implement a radio frequency transceiver for use in a WTRU, UE, terminal, base station, RNC, or any host computer, such acts and operations or instructions may be referred to as being “executed,” “computer executed” or “CPU executed): receive, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of a plurality of beams received by the UE (Fig. 4A and [0104] states, first, “For each step, a WTRU 102 may receive a different measurement configuration. As shown in FIG. 4A, beams and/or reference signals transmitted by the gNB 180” and then the UE can send an indication of the beams that received from the BS as stated in [0118] “A WTRU 102 may perform signal strength measurements (e.g., RSRP or the like) and may indicate one or more preferred beams by reporting one or more corresponding indices (e.g., RS indices) to the gNB 180 (e.g., CRI, SSBRI, SRI, SRS resource set, panel index, etc.) such as by using a preconfigured uplink resource.” and [0147] lines 15-18 “the WTRU 102 may transmit a RS (e.g., SRS) to assist the gNB 180 in determination of the relative delays between each beam of any (e.g., each) of the reported beam-pairs.” That implies the BS can receive, from the UE, an indication of a plurality of beams); transmit, based at least in part on receiving the indication, a message indicating at least a first resource set associated with one or more first beams from the plurality of beams and a second resource set associated with one or more second beams from the plurality of beams (Abstract states “The WTRU may receive, from the BS, a configuration which associates particular beams with particular reference signal resources. “ and [0171] describes that one or more resource set can be configured for the UE which indicated by the higher layer parameters CSI-ResourceConfig. [0243] states “the WTRU 102 may receive information indicating a configuration of the plurality of beams to be transmitted from the base station. As an example, the configuration may be a mapping of the plurality of beams.” That confirms the UE can receive a message from the BS to indicate a resource set associated with different beams from the plurality of beams); each pair including a first individual beam of the one or more first beams and a second individual beam of the one or more second beams (Fig. 5, [0202] states “the reported first and second subsets of the RSs may represent beams selected according to beam selection mode (b) as described herein” [0141], lines 4-8 describes that the UE can perform measurement on each pair from both sets to determine the properties between them. [0125]-[0131] indicate how the WTRU 102 is to determine the (e.g., preferred) paired beam information from the joint beam selection among the set of beams for communicate. [0213] describes the reporting of the beam pairs, where these pairs selected based on signal quality and delay [0252]); and communicate with the UE via a selected beam of the one or more first beams or the one or more second beams (Abstract states “As another example, the WTRU may operate to facilitate selection of a beam pair which may include a first beam transmitted from the base station and a second beam transmitted from the base station and reflected by the IRS to the WTRU.” That implies the UE can communicate with the BS using the selected beam from either the first beam or the second beam. [0102] describes different modes of beam pairing may be considered where each mode may be selected and used based on system parameters and/or conditions. [0114] and [0145] illustrate the process of the beams which can be used for communication between the UE and BS).
Haghighat fails to teach receive a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams.
However, Yang teaches receive a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams ([0073] states “The measurement results of the M beams include at least one of the following: signal quality of the M beams and a channel correlation between the M beams.” [0081] states “at least one of the signal quality measurement results of the N beams and the channel correlation measurement result between the N beams is reported”, where N beams is in M beams [0010]. [0097] describes reporting these measurements results, correlation measurement result, based on whether the N beams have a QCL relationship, to the BS/network node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat to incorporate the teachings of Yang (in analogous art) by including transmitting a report indicative of a level of correlation between pairs of individual beams which is essential for optimizing the unit cells efficiently to support the reliability of a wireless communication link (Yang, [0075], lines 5-11).
Claims 11-13, 15-20, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat et al. (US-20240388326- A1) in view of Yang et al. (US-20220408277-A1) and further in view of Walker et al. (US-20240356625 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Haghighat and Yang teach the method of claim 1.
Haghighat and Yang fail to teach wherein the first resource set is associated with a first reconfigurable intelligent surface and the second resource set is associated with a second reconfigurable intelligent surface.
However, Walker teaches wherein the first resource set is associated with a first reconfigurable intelligent surface and the second resource set is associated with a second reconfigurable intelligent surface ([0358] states “a terminal (e.g. UE 40) has wireless communication means to communicate with an access device (e.g. gNB 10) directly or via a RIS 20, and storage means to store (meta) information about RISs, whereby the terminal may store (meta-)information about one or more RISs (e.g. location/orientation, schedule, capabilities, . . . ) after receiving this information from an access device (directly or originating from a core network function such as AMF, PCF, SMF)”, that implies different resource set for different RISs that associated with metadata which provides physical and operational features (resource set) for RISs, as described in Claim 10, where a UE that has been configured with information/ metadata related to close by RISs can use this metadata to try to reach an access device [0359], lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat in view of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Walker (in analogous art) by including different resource set are associated with different reconfigurable intelligent surface to maximize communications quality and/or throughput, preferably whilst minimizing the transmission power levels. (Walker, [0085] lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 12, Haghighat, Yang and Walker teach the method of claim 11.
Haghighat further teaches wherein a size of the first resource set is based at least in part on the plurality of beams received by the UE via the first reconfigurable intelligent surface and a size of the second resource set is based at least in part on the plurality of beams received by the UE via the second reconfigurable intelligent surface ([0194] states “A WTRU 102 may determine a mapping between an RC state and a measurement resource set and/or a measurement resource for a signal and/or interference (e.g., CSI-RS, SSB or CSI-IM) in at least one occasion of such resource.” That defined the resource set to a collection of reference signals. [0136] states “The first set of reference signals may be associated with a first set of Q beams 414 intended for transmission to an IRS. The second set of reference signals may be associated with a second set of P beams 416 intended for direct transmission to the WTRU 102.” which means Q and P as sizes of the first and second resource set, where each of them corresponds to group of resource signals used for beam management via RIS, as stated in [0146] lines 3-7 and the given example. That indicates size of the first (or second) resource set is based on the plurality of beams received by the UE via the first (or second) reconfigurable intelligent surface).
Regarding claim 13, Haghighat, Yang and Walker teach the method of claim 11.
Haghighat further teaches wherein communicating with the base station via the selected beam further comprises: communicating with the base station via the selected beam and the first reconfigurable intelligent surface (Figs. 2-3 and 5 illustrate the communication between the BS and the wireless device using the selected beam and reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS). [0074] describes the technology of Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces (RIS) and Intelligent Reflecting Surfaces (IRS). [0209] states “the second set of RSs may be associated with a second set of beams transmitted (e.g., from the base station) indirectly to the WTRU 102 via a RIS 204.” Which confirms that the communication with the BS via the selected beam and the RIS) or the second reconfigurable intelligent surface.
Regarding claim 15, Haghighat and Yang teach The method of claim 14.
Haghighat and Yang do not explicitly teach further comprising: transmitting the signal to the UE via at least a first reconfigurable intelligent surface and a second reconfigurable intelligent surface.
However, Walker teaches further comprising: transmitting the signal to the UE via at least a first reconfigurable intelligent surface and a second reconfigurable intelligent surface ([0312] describes that the BS can use a path via one or more RISs to communicate with the UE, that implies the BS can transmit the signal to the UE via two RISs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat in view of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Walker (in analogous art) by including different resource set are associated with different reconfigurable intelligent surface to maximize communications quality and/or throughput, preferably whilst minimizing the transmission power levels. (Walker, [0085] lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 16, Haghighat, Yang and Walker teach the method of claim 15.
Haghighat and Yang fail to teach further comprising: determining that the indication of the plurality of beams comprises the one or more first beams associated with the first a reconfigurable intelligent surface and comprises the one or more second beams associated with the second reconfigurable intelligent surface.
However, Walker teaches further comprising: determining that the indication of the plurality of beams comprises the one or more first beams associated with the first a reconfigurable intelligent surface and comprises the one or more second beams associated with the second reconfigurable intelligent surface (Fig. 13, [0083], [0091] state “the BS 10 comprises an optional RIS database (RIS-DB) 120 containing a list of local RISs and their metadata and optionally the BS beam direction to target each RIS.” Which implies that the BS can determine the beam for each RIS. [0204]-[0206] describes how to determine the optimal communication to communicate with the UE including selecting of the correct beam direction. [0241] states “When found, the BS directs its beam at the RIS and commands the RIS to the correct state” which implies after determine, by the BS, the best beam direction, the BS can assign the beam to the selected RIS, which can be repeated for one or more RISs. [0312] confirms that BS use a path (beams) via one or more RISs to communicate with the UE) and determining the first resource set and the second resource set based at least in part on the indication of the plurality of beams comprising beams associated with different reconfigurable intelligent surfaces ([0355] states “the RIS may be divided into sub-RIS(s) that can be controlled individually” that implies each sub-RIS can be controlled using the metadata (resources), as described in claim 10, [0356] lines 1-4 describes assigning different resources (elements) to each sub-RIS to each multiple BSs /UEs that needed for simultaneous communication. [0050] also describes also using the scheduler to ensure that the resource allocation for efficient resource management).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat in view of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Walker (in analogous art) by including different resource set are associated with different reconfigurable intelligent surface to maximize communications quality and/or throughput, preferably whilst minimizing the transmission power levels. (Walker, [0085] lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 17, Haghighat, Yang and Walker teach the method of claim 16, wherein determining the first resource set and the second resource set further comprises:
Haghighat teaches determining a size of the first resource set based at least in part on a number of beams included in the one or more first beams and a size of the second resource set based at least in part on a number of beams included in the one or more second beams ([0194] states “A WTRU 102 may determine a mapping between an RC state and a measurement resource set and/or a measurement resource for a signal and/or interference (e.g., CSI-RS, SSB or CSI-IM) in at least one occasion of such resource.” That defined the resource set to a collection of reference signals. [0136] states “The first set of reference signals may be associated with a first set of Q beams 414 intended for transmission to an IRS. The second set of reference signals may be associated with a second set of P beams 416 intended for direct transmission to the WTRU 102.” which means Q and P as sizes of the first and second resource set, where each of them corresponds to group of resource signals used for beam management via RIS, as stated in [0146] lines 3-7 and the given example. That indicates size of the first (or second) resource set is based on the plurality of beams received by the UE via the first (or second) reconfigurable intelligent surface).
Regarding claim 18, Haghighat, Yang and Walker teach the method of claim 15.
Haghighat further teaches wherein communicating with the UE via the selected beam further comprises: selecting a beam to communicate with the UE based at least in part on the report, wherein the selected beam is based at least in part on the selecting ([0153] states “the WTRU 102 may transmit information indicating a preferred (e.g., best) beam. For example, the WTRU 102 may send a report which indicates a CRI, SSBRI, or the like associated with the preferred beam.” That implies the selection is based on the report provided by the UE. [0201] describes the information that included in the report, which can be used for beam selection (preferred beams)); and communicating with the UE via the selected beam, wherein the selected beam is associated with the first reconfigurable intelligent surface (Figs. 2-3 and 5 illustrate the communication between the BS and the UE using the selected beam and reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS). [0074] describes the technology of Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces (RIS) or Intelligent Reflecting Surfaces (IRS). [0209] states “the second set of RSs may be associated with a second set of beams transmitted (e.g., from the base station) indirectly to the WTRU 102 via a RIS 204.” Which confirms that the communication with the BS via the selected beam and the RIS) or the second reconfigurable intelligent surface.
Regarding claim 19, Haghighat, Yang and Walker teach the method of claim 18, further comprising:
Haghighat and Yang fail to teach determining a second beam to communicate with a second UE based at least in part on the report and the selected beam
However, Walker teaches determining a second beam to communicate with a second UE based at least in part on the report and the selected beam ([00325] lines 23-27 states “the gNB will reach two or more UEs, at different locations, simultaneously, when sending two or more beams towards the RIS since the two or more beams sent from the gNB to the UEs through the RIS will be reflected/refracted/redirected differently by the RIS” which implies the BS can indicate the second beam to communicate with the second UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat in view of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Walker (in analogous art) by including different resource set are associated with different reconfigurable intelligent surface to maximize communications quality and/or throughput, preferably whilst minimizing the transmission power levels. (Walker, [0085] lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 20, Haghighat, Yang and Walker teach the method of claim 15, further comprising:
Haghighat and Yang fail to teach transmitting a second signal to the UE via the one or more first beams of the first reconfigurable intelligent surface and the one or more second beams of the second reconfigurable intelligent surface based at least in part on transmitting the message indicating the first resource set and the second resource set.
However, Walker teaches transmitting a second signal to the UE via the one or more first beams of the first reconfigurable intelligent surface and the one or more second beams of the second reconfigurable intelligent surface based at least in part on transmitting the message indicating the first resource set and the second resource set ([0085] states “the BS may use its beam forming capabilities and may actively switch/control the behavior of the RISs under its control to maximize communications quality and/or throughput, preferably whilst minimizing the transmission power levels.” Where [0356] states “These elements may be positioned such that they can deflect/(de-)focus/refract/absorb/manipulate the signals coming from various directions”. That implies the BS can use the beamforming to send the signal to the UE using different sub-RIS with different beams, where each sub-RIS has own resources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat in view of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Walker (in analogous art) by including different resource set are associated with different reconfigurable intelligent surface to maximize communications quality and/or throughput, preferably whilst minimizing the transmission power levels. (Walker, [0085] lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 30, Haghighat and Yang teach the apparatus of claim 29, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
Haghighat and Yang do not explicitly teach transmit the signal to the UE via at least a first reconfigurable intelligent surface and a second reconfigurable intelligent surface.
However, Walker teaches transmit the signal to the UE via at least a first reconfigurable intelligent surface and a second reconfigurable intelligent surface ([0312] describes that the BS use a path via one or more RISs to communicate with the UE, that implies the BS can transmit the signal to the UE via two RISs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haghighat in view of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Walker (in analogous art) by including different resource set are associated with different reconfigurable intelligent surface to maximize communications quality and/or throughput, preferably whilst minimizing the transmission power levels. (Walker, [0085] lines 7-9).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Matsumura et al. (US-20240381270-A1), Matsumura et al. (US-20210306060-A1), Raghavan et al. (US-20210234593-A1), Medra et al. (US-11848709-B2), Haija et al. (US-11570629-B2) and Kim et al. (US-20220399928-A1) teach methods for determining and controlling a reconfigurable intelligent surface in a wireless communication systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANAA S AL SAMAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/SANAA AL SAMAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463