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
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 7/20/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 15, 16-19, 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkhateeb et al. “Alkhateeb” US 2021/0013619 in view of Tingnan et al. “Tingnan” “On the ADEP and DOR analysis of RIS-aided URLLC Systems with partial CSI in Smart Factory” submitted in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Alkhateeb teaches a method and base station (Figure 1 and 2, items 14/16 can be a base station; Paragraph 44) comprising:
At least one memory, transceiver and processor with memory configured to cause the base station to (Figure 1 and 2, items 14/16 can be a base station which include processors/memory; Paragraph 44):
Transmit, via the transmitter to a network apparatus, parameters necessary to determine an active number of reflecting elements at an RIS between the base station and a UE to a network apparatus (a base station can be selected as the LIS 12 and dataset parameters (i.e. parameters necessary to determine active elements) are used/received by the LIS controller (i.e. network apparatus); Paragraphs 113-114. Thus one can see the base station would transmit information (parameters) to the LIS controller (i.e. network apparatus)); and
Receive, via the receiver from the network apparatus, the active number of reflecting elements (Paragraph 5 teaches the transmitter/receiver and LIS controller are all in communication, paragraph 125 further teaches the deep learning solution (these are the solutions performed by the LIS controller (i.e. network apparatus) determines m=4 (i.e. active reflecting elements) which is then utilized in the system, thus the base station would receive this information as claimed).
Alkhateeb does not expressly disclose the system is in a RIS-aided URLLC system; however, Tingnan teaches reflective intelligent systems with respect to RIS-aided URLLC systems; Page 2 right column first paragraph under section II.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alkhateeb to include implementing the teachings into a RIS-aided URLLC system as taught by Tingnan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that in a smart factory when reflecting elements are on walls or ceilings, steps can be taken to avoid link disconnections as taught by Tingnan; Page 2 section II first paragraph as well as providing support for IOT applications as taught by Tingnan Section 1 first and 2nd paragraphs.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Alkhateeb teaches the base station sets the active number of reflecting elements to the RIS (Paragraphs 61 and 126 disclose using the determined active reflecting elements (m=4 if paragraph 125).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 17, 18, Alkhateeb does not disclose the parameters include DOR for user groups and traffic parameters; however, Tingnan teaches the correlation between DOR (traffic requirement) and the amount of reflecting antennas; Page 6 left column first paragraph, Page 5 left column under section B teaches IoT applications (user groups)).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alkhateeb to include DOR fort he reflecting antennas as taught by Tingnan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that mission critical IOT over URLLC can meet the higher reliability requirements as taught by Tingnan; Page 6 left column first paragraph.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Alkhateeb does not disclose the parameters include SNR, type of traffic, bandwidth, data rate and volume; however, Tingnan teaches SNR (Page 3 left paragraph under equation 2), bandwidth, type (URLLC), transmission rate and volume (Page 5 left column first paragraph under “B. Delay outage rate”, amount of data
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alkhateeb to include the parameters as taught by Tingnan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that mission critical IOT over URLLC can meet the higher reliability requirements as taught by Tingnan; Page 6 left column first paragraph.
Regarding claim 22, Alkhateeb teaches a network apparatus comprising (LIS controller (30 of Figure 1)) comprising:
At least one memory, transceiver and processor with memory configured to cause the base station to (Figure 17 shows the processors and memory):
receive, via the receiver from a base station, parameters necessary to determine an active number of reflecting elements at an RIS between the base station and a UE to a network apparatus (a base station can be selected as the LIS 12 and dataset parameters (i.e. parameters necessary to determine active elements) are used/received by the LIS controller (i.e. network apparatus); Paragraphs 113-114. Thus one can see the base station would transmit information (parameters) to the LIS controller (i.e. network apparatus)); and
transmit, via the transmitter to the base station, the active number of reflecting elements (Paragraph 5 teaches the transmitter/receiver and LIS controller are all in communication, paragraph 125 further teaches the deep learning solution (these are the solutions performed by the LIS controller (i.e. network apparatus) determines m=4 (i.e. active reflecting elements) which is then utilized in the system, thus the base station would receive this information as claimed).
Alkhateeb does not expressly disclose the system is in a RIS-aided URLLC system; however, Tingnan teaches reflective intelligent systems with respect to RIS-aided URLLC systems; Page 2 right column first paragraph under section II.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alkhateeb to include implementing the teachings into a RIS-aided URLLC system as taught by Tingnan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that in a smart factory when reflecting elements are on walls or ceilings, steps can be taken to avoid link disconnections as taught by Tingnan; Page 2 section II first paragraph as well as providing support for IOT applications as taught by Tingnan Section 1 first and 2nd paragraphs.
Regarding claims 23-24, Alkhateeb does not disclose the parameters include DOR ofr user groups and traffic parameters; however, Tingnan teaches the correlation between DOR (traffic requirement) and the amount of reflecting antennas; Page 6 left column first paragraph. Page 5 left column under section B teaches IoT applications (user groups)).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alkhateeb to include DOR fort he reflecting antennas as taught by Tingnan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that mission critical IOT over URLLC can meet the higher reliability requirements as taught by Tingnan; Page 6 left column first paragraph.
Regarding claim 25, Alkhateeb does not disclose the parameters include SNR, type of traffic, bandwidth, data rate and volume; however, Tingnan teaches SNR (Page 3 left paragraph under equation 2), bandwidth, type (URLLC), transmission rate and volume (Page 5 left column first paragraph under “B. Delay outage rate”, amount of data
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Alkhateeb to include the parameters as taught by Tingnan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that mission critical IOT over URLLC can meet the higher reliability requirements as taught by Tingnan; Page 6 left column first paragraph.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 20, 21, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkhateeb in view of Tingnan and further in view of Kim et al. “Kim” US2023/0336241.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the prior art does not teach the use of AMF for sending information; however, Kim teaches the use of AMF and NWDAF; Paragraphs 68. The system of Kim is for URLLC with RIS; Paragraph 5.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include an AMF as taught by Kim.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that high data rates and ultra-low latency can be achieved in the newer system as taught by Kim; Paragraph 5.
Regarding claims 7 and 21, while Tingnan teaches deep learning for the LIS controller, the prior art does not teach the use of a NWDAF; however, Kim teaches the use of AMF and NWDAF; Paragraphs 68. The system of Kim is for URLLC with RIS; Paragraph 5.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include a NWDAF as taught by Kim.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that high data rates and ultra-low latency can be achieved in the newer system as taught by Kim; Paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art does not teach the use of AMF for sending information; however, Kim teaches the use of AMF and NWDAF; Paragraphs 68. The system of Kim is for URLLC with RIS; Paragraph 5.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include an AMF as taught by Kim.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that high data rates and ultra-low latency can be achieved in the newer system as taught by Kim; Paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 27, while Tingnan teaches deep learning for the LIS controller, the prior art does not teach the use of a NWDAF; however, Kim teaches the use of AMF and NWDAF; Paragraphs 68. The system of Kim is for URLLC with RIS; Paragraph 5.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include a NWDAF as taught by Kim.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that high data rates and ultra-low latency can be achieved in the newer system as taught by Kim; Paragraph 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant states the claims provide a specific distributed architecture involving the core network. Applicant argues the claims recite processing between a base station and a separate network apparatus which is understood in the art to be a core network apparatus and not a LIS or RIS.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, there is nothing in claim 1 that requires a core network component. Secondly, a person of skill in the art does not only attribute “network apparatus” to a core network apparatus. For example, a base station is a fixed network apparatus; however, a base station is not a core network component. Paragraphs 5-10, 46, 75-78, 80 and Figure 5 steps 550-580, as noted by the Applicant, show an example of components used; however, the specification will not be read into the claim language. Claim 1 does not require a NWDAF, or AMF, or any other particular type of core network component. Further, Applicant’s specification does not limit the network apparatus to only being able to be a NWDAF, and this is just one example of a type of component the network apparatus could be. Therefore, the argument that the claims require a core network apparatus/component are improper. As noted in the interview, the claims need to recite a core network apparatus, otherwise the term “network apparatus” will not be given the meaning of a “Core network apparatus”.
Applicant argues Alkhateeb’s “active” elements are a fixed hardware distinction between elements and thus does not teach a network apparatus dynamically determining how many reflecting elements should be active for reflection based on parameters sent from a base station.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require any dynamic determination of how many reflecting elements are used, nor does the claim language require more than one determination from being made. Therefore, assuming arguendo Applicant’s arguments are correct that Alkhateeb teaches fixed active elements, this is all that is required to properly read on the claim language. The Examiner suggests further defining the claims to show dynamic determination and performing more than one determination of active elements wherein a value of active elements is different than the first.
Applicant further argues Alkhateeb does not teach a base station transmitting parameters to a network apparatus or a network apparatus determining an active number of elements because Alkhateeb provides a simulation environment and thus not a network apparatus during active system operation. Applicant further agues paragraph 125 does not determine an active number of reflecting elements for actual system operation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 6 shows a scenario of what happens with respect to Figure 2 which is an active network. The LIS reflects received signals (paragraph 113, thus showing a communication). Paragraphs 125 and 129 further teach the idea of how many active elements (M) there can be. These values are deemed are transmit among the network elements and thus the “active number of reflecting elements” are received from the LIS (i.e. network apparatus). Assuming arguendo these active elements (M) are fixed, there is nothing in the claim language that precludes this interpretation from being proper.
The arguments presented are not reflected in the claim language. The claim does not require any core network elements nor any dynamic determination of active reflecting elements. As noted in the interview, the Examiner suggests defining the network to be a core network apparatus to overcome the cited art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights