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 § 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 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 col. 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uusitalo et al (US20220361011A1) in view of Qiu et al (US20250005856A1, PCT WO2025006793A1 Priority Date: Jun 28, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Uusitalo’011 discloses a method comprising (see, Fig. 1, signal between the base station 84 and autonomous vehicle is blocked by the container(s) in a harbor, par 0047):
identifying a zone blocked from a line of sight (LOS) of a base station (BS LOS area blocked by container, par 0106), based on data measured over time by a user equipment (UE) (UE (drone) can be equated to UE, par 0106-0107) located proximately to the zone (see, Fig. 12, UE (drone) in proximity detects BS LOS area blocked by container through periodically measurement, par 0053, 0106, 0118), the data including downlink signal quality measurements (see, measurement/sensing data acquired from the movable devices (e.g. UAVs) associated initially with location data, par 0102);
receiving a three-dimensional (3D) spatial map (Fig. 10, 3D spatial REM (radio environment map), par 0102) of a first area including the zone and a second area that surrounds the zone and that is within both a coverage area (Fig. 1 and 10, areas in harbor under coverage of BS, par 0047, 0076, 0088) and the LOS of the base station (see, Fig. 3 and 12, digital twin DTwin maintenance function receives from drone the updated information for 3D spatial REM including BS LOS areas in neighbor, par 0053, 0055-0056, 0060, 0063, 0102-0103. Noted, NLOS comes due to routes of the traffic and piles of containers which changes with time, par 0076. Noted further, multi-dimensional data containing radio-related information including LOS/NLOS acquired from UAVs by DT (digital twin), par 0102. Noted further, Fig. 1, patrolling in areas with more challenging radio conditions, and thus neighbor areas far from the BS, par 0053; Tuned or optimized metasurface design and placement improves the median RSS of adjacent conference rooms, par 0083).
Uusitalo’011 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
determining whether the second area includes a mountable surface to which a passive radio frequency reflective metasurface is attachable;
determining whether the metasurface, if attached to the mountable surface, generates a reflection path to the zone, based on a determination that the second area includes the mountable surface and based on estimated propagation paths from the base station to the zone;
determining whether to add a metasurface to the second area based on: a determination result of whether the second area includes the mountable surface; and
a determination result whether the reflection path from the metasurface attached to the mountable surface to the zone includes reflected downlink signals that satisfy a threshold bandwidth condition.
However Qiu’856 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, interior environment containing AP, various reflective and blocking surfaces, and four reception locations, par 0036) discloses:
determining whether the second area (see, Fig. 1, room of rooms, par 0037, 0072) includes a mountable surface (metasurface mounted on wall or ceiling and thus wall or ceiling can be equated to mountable surface, par 0042, 0086) to which a passive radio frequency reflective metasurface (reflective passive metasurfaces, par 0042) is attachable (see, tuning hype-configurations of surface including number of metasurfaces M, the sizes of the metasurfaces Nms and width and height of a metasurface iteratively until performance converges to acceptable result according to threshold, and thus whether number of metasurfaces M (for room being tuned for acceptable result according to threshold) is not 0 can be equated to determining whether the second area includes a mountable surface is attachable, par 0037, 0044, 0055. Noted, reflection occurring when size of passive metasurface is sufficiently large (e.g., the area of a wall or floor), par 0055);
determining whether the metasurface, if attached to the mountable surface (tuning hype-configurations of surface including number of metasurfaces M and M not 0 can be equated to attached to the mountable surface, par 0044), generates a reflection path to the zone (reflection occurring when size of passive metasurface is sufficiently large (the area of a wall or floor), par 0055), based on a determination that the second area includes the mountable surface (whether number of metasurfaces M (for room being tuned for acceptable result according to threshold) is not 0 can be equated to determination that the second area includes the mountable surface, par 0037, 0044, 0055) and based on estimated propagation paths (performance (maximum strength) of propagation paths affected by metasurfaces, par 0048) from the base station to the zone (see, tuning hype-configurations of surface including number of metasurfaces M, the sizes of the metasurfaces Nms and width and height of a metasurface iteratively until performance (maximum strength of propagation paths) converges to acceptable result according to threshold, and reflection occurring when size of passive metasurface is sufficiently large (the area of a wall or floor), par 0037, 0044, 0048, 0055);
determining whether to add a metasurface to the second area based on: a determination result of whether the second area (see, Fig. 1, room of rooms, par 0037, 0072) includes the mountable surface (see, tuning hype-configurations of surface for room including number of metasurfaces M iteratively until performance converges to acceptable result according to threshold, par 0038, 0044. Noted, tuning number of metasurfaces M iteratively for room can be equated to add a metasurface to the second area); and
a determination result whether the reflection path from the metasurface attached to the mountable to the zone (see, Fig. 1, room of rooms, par 0037, 0072) includes reflected downlink signals surface (reflection occurring when the size of a passive metasurface is sufficient, par 0055) that satisfy a threshold bandwidth condition (see, tuning the propagation coefficient to maximize transmittance through passive metasurface reflection within room with an approximately 2π phase shift (threshold) across a predefined frequency band, par 0037, 0044, 0072, 0095. Noted, approximately 2π phase shift (threshold) across a predefined frequency band can be equated to a threshold bandwidth condition, par 0095).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Qiu’856 into that of Uusitalo’011. The motivation would have been to design passive metasurface system within an environment includes receiving three-dimensional model of the environment including one or more transmitter locations and one or more target locations, and determining metasurface designs and placements to achieve given objective (abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 recites an electronic device performing the steps recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium performing the steps recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uusitalo’011 in view of Qiu’856 as applied to claim 1, 8 and 15 above respectively, and further in view of Fryking et al (US20240421887A1, Priority Date: Mar 02, 2021).
Regarding claim 2, Uusitalo’011 discloses the method of Claim 1 (see, Fig. 1, signal between the base station 84 and autonomous vehicle is blocked by the container(s) in a harbor, par 0047), wherein the UE includes an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) (UAV, par 0059) that includes sensors (sensors, par 0060) configured to generate the data (see, UAV transfer sensor data from sensors, par 0059-0060),
The combination of Uusitalo’011 and Qiu’856 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the downlink signal quality measurements include reference signal measurements.
However Fryking’887 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1A, radio access network comprises network node connects to core network and wireless devices, par 0033) discloses:
wherein the downlink signal quality measurements include reference signal measurements (see, wireless device measures CSI-RSs from network node, par 0040).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Fryking’887 into that of Uusitalo’011 modified by Qiu’856. The motivation would have been to determine the availability of temporally dynamic beams for beam transitions in mobile communication systems (par 0001).
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites an electronic device performing the steps recited in claim 2 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium performing the steps recited in claim 2 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/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.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are objected by virtue of their dependency on claims 3, 10 and 17 respectively.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/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.
Claims 6 and 13 are objected by virtue of their dependency on claims 5 and 12 respectively.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/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.
Thyagarajan et al (US20240035015A1, Priority Date: Jul 28, 2022) discloses: If user provided, the user can enter values 23, 25 the characteristics and classifications of the cells of the material 56, the metasurface 62, the medium 58, and the container 55, 59 into the field application device 11, 58 or through a further computing device into the adjuster 19, 21. Alternatively, if only the values 23, 25 for the characteristics are provided, machine learning can be used to classify the cells of the material 56, the metasurface 62, the container 55, 59, and the medium 58 (par 0030); Meanwhile, the field parameters can include amplitude, frequency, phase, waveform, and duration, as well as other types of parameters. Values for the parameters can be determined using a look up table, which can provide field parameter values for particular combinations of particular cells of the material 56 and metasurface 62, and, if used for the determination, the characteristics and classification (if available) or the container 55, 59 and the medium 58. In a further embodiment, machine learning can be used to determine the initial field parameters. The learning can be performed based on data sets of the characteristic values and parameters for fields to be applied to each of the different objects. Once the parameters are determined, the field is then applied (step 35) to the metasurface 62, based on the values of the parameters (par 0033). This part can be applied to claim 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2844. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, KWANG Yao can be reached on (571)272-3182. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XUAN LU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights