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 .
Specification
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the following phrases can be implied: (1) “Various embodiments may provide” (1st line) and (2) “In some embodiments, ..” (2nd sentence). The 1st line sentence also repeats the title. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following change is suggested: A first wireless device at a first location may transmit to a second wireless device ….
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10 - 11, 14, 19 - 20, 23, 26 - 27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2021023494A1 (hereafter WO494; which has been provided in the International Search Report)
Regarding claim 1, WO494 discloses a method performed by a first wireless device at a first location for providing communication security at a physical layer in messages sent to a second wireless device at a second location remote from the first location (Abstract; page 24, 1st line discloses physical layer security), the method comprising:
dividing a message to be sent to the second wireless device into different portions ([0033] discloses “Fig. 5 illustrates the basic concept of the embodiment of spatial hopping in different time slots …..In the situation shown in Fig. 5B A is sending its message by splitting up the message into several message portions, each transmitted in a different direction ….. Thus, in this embodiment the transmitter uses two independent reflection paths 3 and 4 and the direct path 5 for transmitting one third of the message via each path..”; Fig. 5B);
and transmitting the different portions of the message to the second wireless device via two or more different spatially separated signal paths ([0033]; Fig. 5B, as above) in a manner that enables the second wireless device to receive the complete message but prevents reception of the complete message by a third wireless device at a third location different from the second location ([0013] discloses “A sender and a receiver thus may utilize PHY layer spatial diversity and multi-array antenna configurations to prevent a malicious third party from potentially eavesdropping communication between the legitimate sender and receiver.”; [0034] discloses “As only the message period transmitted via the path 1 can be decoded by the eavesdropper E, a reconstruction of the complete message is not possible.”; wherein the 3rd wireless device is the eavesdropper E).
Regarding claim 2, WO494 discloses dividing the message to be sent to the second wireless device into different portions comprises dividing the message before channel coding into different groups of packets (Fig. 12, block 31; [0065] discloses “For example, the data processing unit 31 generates a frame (in particular a MAC frame) from the data by performing processes such as fragmentation, segmentation,…”; [0067] discloses “…the wireless communication unit 32 performs encoding, interleaving, and modulation on the frame provided from the data processing unit 31 in accordance with a coding and modulation scheme set by the control unit 33, …”; wherein block 32 is done after 31);
and transmitting the different portions of the message to the second wireless device via two or more different spatially separated signal paths comprises transmitting the different groups of packets of the message via respective ones of a plurality of multiple input multiple output (MIMO) beams (Fig, 5B; [0033]; [0062] discloses MIMO transmission).
Regarding claim 5, WO494 discloses encrypting the message prior to transmitting the different portions of the message via the two or more different spatially separated signal paths ([0003] discloses “According to conventional approaches, information that shall not be shared with all potential recipients might be encrypted using keys exclusively known to the sender and receiver.”).
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 10 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. WO494 discloses processor executing instructions ([0010]).
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 19 reciting operations as seen by the receiving device. The 1st device in claim 19 corresponds to the 2nd device in claim 1 and vice versa. Further, WO494 discloses the additional limitation:
and assembling the message from the received different portions of the message (Fig. 5B, B receives messages from paths 3, 4,5. Since B receives messages from all paths, B is able to reconstruct the original message).
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 2, with claim 20 reciting operations as seen by the receiving device.
Claim 23 is similarly analyzed as claim 5, 19. WO494 discloses decrypting the messages ([0003] discloses “…all participants are then able to decrypt information from any other participant that is part of the network….”).
Claim 26 is similarly analyzed as claim 19, with claim 26 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations.
Claim 27 is similarly analyzed as claim 20, with claim 26 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations.
Claim 29 is similarly analyzed as claim 23.
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.
Claims 3, 7 - 8, 12, 16 - 17, 21, 24, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021023494A1 (hereafter WO494; which has been provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 3, WO494 does not explicitly disclose retransmitting one of the different packets of the message via the same MIMO beam as the originally-sent one of the different packets of the message.
However, WO494 discloses ([0034] “…the message portions may be transmitted in different time slots, different frequency bands or subcarriers, different spreading sequences, different polarizations, etc.”.
Therefore, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F) it would have been obvious to try by/or an obvious variation for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to retransmit one of the different packets of the message via the same MIMO beam using a different method selected from above, as this would help enhance security or be useful if the original transmission was received erroneously.
Regarding claim 7, WO494 does discloses dividing the message to be sent to the second wireless device into different portions before coding (Fig. 12, block 31 before block 32);
and mapping the coded bits to different modulation points of a modulation scheme (Fig. 12, block 32; [0067] discloses “…encoding, interleaving, and modulation on the frame…”;
and transmitting the different portions of the message to the second wireless device via two or more different spatially separated signal paths comprises transmitting the coded bits of the message mapped to different modulation points via different beams (e.g. Fig 5B; [0033]).
WO494 does not disclose:
dividing the message after a channel coding operation into coded bits of the message;
wherein each of the different beams corresponds to one of the different modulation points.
However, the above is obvious to try or an obvious variation of what WO494 discloses (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F). WO494 discloses diving the message in block 31, [0065]. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, could move the division further downstream and do it after coding and then send the coded symbols on different spatial paths.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to send the symbols after coding on different paths as dividing the coded symbols would further enhance security as they are now on different paths, all of which may not be received by the 3rd device.
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as claim 7. One of ordinary skill in the art could code the symbols and then divide the coded constellation into subsets and transmit each subset on different spatial paths for the same motivation as stated in claim 7.
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 8.
Claim 21 is similarly analyzed as claim 3. Claim 21 also recites: transmitting a request for retransmission of one or more of the packets of the message. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), this is obvious to try if the original transmission was received erroneously.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to request a retransmission, as this would be useful if the original transmission was received erroneously.
Claim 24 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 28 is similarly analyzed as claim 21.
Claims 4, 13, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021023494A1 (hereafter WO494; which has been provided in the International Search Report) in view of Furuichi (US 20260113076 A1).
Regarding claim 4, WO494 discloses transmitting different packets of the message via respective ones of a plurality of MIMO beam comprises:
transmitting a first subset of packets of the message via a first MIMO beam directed toward the second wireless device (Fig, 5B discloses A sending a beam directly to B via path 5; [0033]);
transmitting a second subset of packets of the message via a second MIMO beam toward a reflector (Fig, 5B discloses A sending a beam to B via reflection paths 3 and 4; [0033]);
WO494 does not disclose a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) and and controlling the RIS to transmit the second subset of packets towards the second wireless device through signal reflection.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Furuichi discloses a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) and controlling signal reflection direction ([0277] discloses “…the reflection angle (angle of reflection) coincide with each other or have a certain relationship with respect to a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) or the like. Note that the reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) is a metasurface device in which elements for electrically switching a phase are arranged on a surface of a reflector to adaptively change a reflection direction….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the RIS, as disclosed by Furuichi, in the system of WO494 because this would allow one to transmit the second subset of packets towards the second wireless device through controlled signal reflection direction.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 22 is similarly analyzed as claim 4, with claim 22 reciting equivalent receiving operations.
Claims 9, 18, 25, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021023494A1 (hereafter WO494; which has been provided in the International Search Report) in view of Black et al. (US 20160373181 A1).
Regarding claim 9, WO494 discloses transmitting each of the subsets of symbols via a corresponding beam comprises transmitting each of the subsets of symbols via multiple input multiple output (MIMO) beams corresponding to the subsets of symbols (Fig, 5B; [0033]; [0062] discloses MIMO transmission).
WO494 does not disclose holographic MIMO.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Black discloses holographic MIMO (Abstract; [0020]; [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use holographic MIMO, as disclosed by Black, in the system of WO494 because holographic MIMO would increase transmission capacity and reduce antenna size.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 9.
Claim 25 is similarly analyzed as claim 9.
Claim 30 is similarly analyzed as claim 25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 15 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.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to beamforming/MIMO systems:
Haynes et al. (US 12525703 B2) discloses beam sweeping and establishing a beamformed connection using parameters like CSI, a CQI, a RSSI, a QoS, a SNR.
Ashari et al. (US 20220094417 A1) discloses mobility-aware antenna beam tracking for moving communication devices.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights