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 .
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 16-19, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ali et al. US 20230189021.
Regarding claim 1, A method for wireless communications at a reconfigurable intelligent surface controller (a method for configuration corresponding to a reconfigurable intelligent surface controller, para. 0087, network unit including a reconfigurable intelligent surface controller, para. 0041, Figure 1, element 104, Figure 3), comprising: transmitting a first message indicating a class of a first reconfigurable intelligent surface of one or more reconfigurable intelligent surfaces served by the reconfigurable intelligent surface controller, the class associated with one or more capabilities of the first reconfigurable intelligent surface (providing, from a network node, a capability report to a location management function, the capability report corresponds to reconfigurable intelligent surfaces used for positioning, para. 0088, the capability report comprises a recommendation for a positioning reference signal configuration, the capability report comprises information indicating reconfigurable intelligent surfaces involved in positioning, a number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, a number of segments of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, dimensions of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, and a location of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, para, 0091); receiving a second message that includes an indication of one or more identifiers associated with the first reconfigurable intelligent surface, a quantity of the one or more identifiers associated with the first reconfigurable intelligent surface based at least in part on the class associated with the first reconfigurable intelligent surface (receiving control information for the reconfigurable intelligent surface comprising a time domain allocation of symbols, slots, configured to carry positioning reference signal information and positioning spatial information for beamforming the reflected positioning reference signal with a determined angle of departure, comprising allocating the multi-port positioning reference signal to a configured time and frequency grid based on a positioning reference signal resource set identifier of a plurality of reconfigurable intelligent surface identifiers, para. 0090); and receiving a third message indicating, via the one or more identifiers, a configuration for the first reconfigurable intelligent surface for communications between the first reconfigurable intelligent surface and one or more network entities (configuration for a reconfigurable intelligent surface to apply beam sweeping of a single port positioning reference signal such that positioning reference signal symbols in a slot are grouped and different spatial information is applied by the reconfigurable intelligent surface controller based on a report from the receiving device corresponding to multiple positioning reference signal identifiers for multiple reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, para. 0092,).
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first message further comprises: transmitting the first message indicating a number of reconfigurable intelligent surface elements of the first reconfigurable intelligent surface (providing, from a network node, a capability report to a location management function, the capability report corresponds to reconfigurable intelligent surfaces used for positioning, para. 0088, the capability report comprises a recommendation for a positioning reference signal configuration, the capability report comprises information indicating reconfigurable intelligent surfaces involved in positioning, a number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, a number of segments of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, dimensions of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, and a location of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, para, 0091).
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first message further comprises: transmitting the first message indicating a number of sub-reconfigurable intelligent surfaces supported by the first reconfigurable intelligent surface (providing, from a network node, a capability report to a location management function, the capability report corresponds to reconfigurable intelligent surfaces used for positioning, para. 0088, the capability report comprises a recommendation for a positioning reference signal configuration, the capability report comprises information indicating reconfigurable intelligent surfaces involved in positioning, a number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, a number of segments of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, dimensions of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, and a location of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, para, 0091).
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first message further comprises: transmitting the first message indicating a number of reconfigurable intelligent surface elements the first reconfigurable intelligent surface supports per sub- reconfigurable intelligent surface (providing, from a network node, a capability report to a location management function, the capability report corresponds to reconfigurable intelligent surfaces used for positioning, para. 0088, the capability report comprises a recommendation for a positioning reference signal configuration, the capability report comprises information indicating reconfigurable intelligent surfaces involved in positioning, a number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, a number of segments of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, dimensions of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, and a location of each reconfigurable intelligent surface of the number of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, para, 0091).
Claim 16-19, 29-30 are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali in view of McMenamy et al. US 20240413858.
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 1, Ali does not expressly disclose wherein transmitting the first message further comprises: transmitting the first message indicating one or more codebook-based or non-codebook based beams supported by the first reconifigurable intelligent surface. McMenamy discloses the capabilities of the RIS may be known and/or determined and/or stored as capability information, in a database or another network entity similar to a location management function, LMF, used for positioning, para. 0275. McMenamy discloses capabilities and associated parameters such as beamforming codebooks can be shared or signaled by the RIS or any other network entity having knowledge about the RIS, para. 0275. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Ali to include McMenamy’s beamforming capability exchange. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for throughput, energy consumption, bit error rates, interference optimization, para. 0107.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-15, 21-28 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights