DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the one or more carrier frequency shifts" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reddy et al (2025/0254637).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Reddy discloses a user equipment (UE)/a processor for wireless communication (see ambient IOT devices in paragraphs 0025, 0042), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (see figures 2 and 10) and configured to cause the UE to: transmit, simultaneously with a group of UEs that includes the UE, data blocks over an initial carrier frequency (see Ambient IOT devices 760 with poorer energizing coverage (and lower transmit power on the uplink) may be grouped together for transmission on the uplink such that stronger ambient IOT devices 760 do not interfere and subdue the weaker ones in paragraph 0135); and perform group frequency hopping by transmitting, simultaneously with the group of UEs, data blocks over a shifted carrier frequency (see a frequency on which one or more communications are transmitted (in other words a group of ambient IOT are transmitted in the same frequency). A hopping frequency sequence (HFS) can be associated with the channel. In some cases, the HFS may progress at a fixed and/or pre-determined interval in paragraph 0036; several tens or even hundreds of ambient IOT devices 760 may be energized at the same time and potentially transmit around the same time on the uplink in paragraph 0135).
Regarding claim 2, Reddy discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit the data over the initial carrier frequency at an initial time slot and perform the group frequency hopping at a next time slot after the initial time slot (see a hopping frequency sequence in paragraph 0036; time slot in figure 5 and paragraphs 0099-0105. Note that the initial carrier frequency is a carrier frequency at the beginning of the hopping frequency sequence and the initial time slot is an earliest time slot).
Regarding claim 3, Reddy discloses wherein the shifted carrier frequency is shifted based on one or more carrier frequency shifts configured for the group of UEs (see a channel (frequency) offset (shift) in paragraph 0136 and a predefined frequency hopping pattern in paragraph 0036. Note that in the frequency hopping, the second carrier frequency is shifted from the first carrier frequency in the frequency hopping pattern).
Regarding claim 5, Reddy discloses the UE is an ambient internet of things (AIoT) device (see ambient IOT devices in paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 8, Reddy discloses wherein the one or more carrier frequency shifts are selected to reduce transmission interference between the group of UEs and another group of UEs (see the relationship between interference and a hopping/shifting frequency sequence/pattern in paragraph 0036).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Reddy discloses a network entity (see network devices and network entity in figure 6) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network entity to: determine a configuration that identifies one or more carrier frequency shifts of carrier frequencies used by a group of user equipment (UEs) for simultaneous transmission of data blocks; and transmit the determined configuration to the group of UEs (see each access point (network entity) may have an associated channel map. A channel map is a listing of frequency channels to be utilized or, conversely, not to be utilized (e.g., in the context of modification of frequency hopping (equivalent to frequency shifting) sequences) by an access point for communication, such as with the ESLs or other devices in paragraph 0038; two groups of wireless network devices in paragraph 0096; a network device such as an access point in paragraphs 0009 and 0027).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 9-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Patchava et al (2025/0097915).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Reddy doesn't specifically disclose wherein the group of UEs includes passive ambient Internet of Things (AIoT) devices, semi-passive AIoT devices, or active AIoT devices. However, Patchava discloses this feature (see passive and semi-passive IoT devices in paragraph 0097). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 9, Reddy discloses receive a carrier wave from a reader device (see the WCD receives a carrier wave from the network device in figure 5 but doesn't specifically disclose the UE is a passive ambient Internet of Things (AIoT) device or a semi-passive AIoT device, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit the data blocks over the initial carrier frequency and the shifted carrier frequency via backscatter transmissions responsive to the received carrier wave. However, Patchava discloses these features (see passive IoT device referred to as an “ambient backscatter device” or a “backscatter device.” in paragraphs 0084-0086).
Regarding claim 10, Patchava discloses wherein the data blocks comprise constellation points, including: quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), or phase shift keying (PSK) (see PSK in paragraph 0092).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy.
Regarding claims 6-7, Reddy doesn't specifically disclose wherein the data blocks transmitted over the initial carrier frequency are the same as the data blocks transmitted over the shifted carrier frequency or the data blocks transmitted over the initial carrier frequency are different than the data blocks transmitted over the shifted carrier frequency. However, it is obvious that the data blocks transmitted over the shifted carrier frequency can be the same or different from the data blocks transmitted over the initial carrier frequency depending on whether or not the transmitted data block needs retransmission.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Sun et al (2025/0260606).
Regarding claim 11, Reddy doesn't specifically disclose wherein the data blocks are codewords drawn from codebooks configured for ambient Internet of Things (AIoT) devices. However, Sun discloses AIoT, codebook and codewords (see paragraphs 0072, 0074, 0210, 0233). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Tang et al (2025/0358755).
Regarding claim 14, Reddy doesn't specifically disclose superposed transmissions. However, Tang discloses this feature (see the reader 308 receives a superposition of both the direct link 320 signal and the backscatter link 315 signal in paragraph 0072). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Tang as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gan et al (2026/0156467).
Regarding claims 15-17, Reddy discloses establishing timing synchronization for computing devices (see paragraph 0005. Note that resynchronization is a process of repeating synchronization when the network is out-of-syn and the out-of-syn will cause network error). Reddy doesn't specifically disclose using signature. However, using a signature is well known in the art. Gan discloses this feature (see a signature algorithm in paragraphs 0141-0143).
Regarding claim 18, Gan discloses the at least one processor is configured to cause the network entity to identify the group of UEs via a group identifier for the group of UEs (see an internal-group identifier (IGI) in paragraphs 0051).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3084. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
/BRIAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights