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 .
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its more than 150 words. 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).
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to because figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 5 lack descriptive legends as required by 37 CFR 1.84(o). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 10, on line 10, “optionally” is indefinite. The meets and bounds of the claims need to be clearly defined and the use of optionally doesn’t make it so. Dependent claims 11-16 are rejected since they depend upon claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 7-10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patchava et al US 2025/0062841 in view of Baligh et al US 2023/0308140 A1.
9. Consider claim 1. Patchava et al teaches an excitation source system (fig 8) configured to transmit a first signal to a first device (102) and a second signal to a second device (504), wherein the second signal is configured to excite the second device to generate a backscatter signal (810) receivable by the first device (102), wherein the excitation source system is configured to:, managing quality (at 100…each of the tags 504 may measure the received power of the signaling associated with each beam direction. As such, each tag 504 may determine which directional beam provides the strongest and/or highest quality signaling….) at the first device of a further backscatter signal (812) triggered by a further second signal (808) from the excitation source system. Patchava et al fails to teach receive a feedback signal from the first device, the feedback signal enabling the excitation source system to determine feedback information based on reception of the first excitation signal and the backscatter signal, apply or determine one or more adjustment parameters for the further backscatter signal. However, Baligh et al teaches such (fig 10, 1045…following measurement of the RS, the UE 1006 sends 1040 channel state information (CSI) or channel quality information (CQI) to the RIS 1004. The information provided in message may be used by the BS 1002 to determine a RIS pattern that the RIS 1004 should use for data reflection…). It would have been obvious, to add a feedback signal as taught by Baligh et al into Patchava et al system in order to enhance the quality of his further backscatter signal (812). Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
10. Regarding claims 7 and 15. The combination of Patchava et al and Baligh et al teach wherein the excitation source system is configured to transmit the adjusted first signal (1045) to the first device (102) in accordance with the one or more adjustment parameters (CSI or CQI in Baligh et al); and transmit the further second signal to the second device (504), wherein the further second signal is configured to trigger the further backscatter signal (802 in Patchava).
11. Regarding claim 8. Baligh et al teaches wherein the excitation source system (fig 4A) comprises one or more excitation sources and further comprises or is connected to at least one of: at least one reflective intelligent surface (420), RIS, configured to obtain the first adjusted signal (1045) by adjusting the first signal in accordance with the one or more adjustment parameters (CSI or CQI); an orchestrating system (fig 10) configured to coordinate a plurality of excitation sources in the excitation source system regarding transmission of at least one of the first signal (1020), the second signal (1025), the adjusted first signal (1040) and the further second signal (1045).
12. Regarding claims 9 and 16. Patchava et al teaches (Fig 1 and 0037) wherein the excitation source system is implemented at least in part in a telecommunications system, such as a 4G, 5G or 6G telecommunications system.
13. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patchava et al US 2025/0062841 in view of Baligh et al US 2023/0308140 A1 further in view of Dai et al US 2022/0322321 A1.
Regarding claims 2 and 11. The combination of Patchava et al and Baligh et al fail to teach wherein the feedback information relates to a phase difference between the first signal and the backscatter signal and wherein at least one of the one or more adjustment parameters relates to a phase shift for the first signal to obtain constructive interference between the adjusted first signal and the further backscatter signal. However, Dai et al teaches such (see 0062). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to apply the phase shifting as one of the adjustments to better adapt to the wireless environment.
14. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patchava et al US 2025/0062841 in view of Baligh et al US 2023/0308140 A1 further in view of Bengtsson et al US 20220231753 A1.
15. Regarding claim 5. The combination fails to explicitly state wherein excitation source system is configured to at least one of the following: transmit the first signal with a time delay with respect to the second signal; and perform beamforming of the first signal and the second signal. However, Bengtsson et al teaches such (0043). It would have been obvious to adjust for time delay as taught by Bengtsson et al in Patchava et al in order to compensate for the different distances of the devices.
16. Claims 3, 6, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patchava et al US 2025/0062841 in view of Baligh et al US Patchava further in view of Von Novak III et al US 2019/0089571 A1.
17. Regarding claims 3 and 12. The combination of Patchava et al and Baligh et al fail to teach wherein the feedback information relates to at least one of the following: a signal-to-noise ratio, SNR, of the backscatter signal; and an error estimate for the backscatter signal. However, Von Novak III et al teaches such (from 0081… a closed-loop feedback mechanism to determine communication error. In a typical backscatter communications system, the forward link is robust as compared to the reverse link. In other words, the forward link typically has a significantly higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)…..). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to substitute this feedback information, for that taught by Baligh et al. in order to increase the quality of the communication.
18. Regarding claims 6 and 14. Von Novak III et al teaches wherein the excitation source system is configured to receive a control capacity (reads on bandwidth related to modulation schemes in 0048 and 0049) request from the first device and provide a control capacity indication to the first device.
Claim Objections
19. Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4. The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein the first signal contains a predetermined data sequence; and the second signal contains the predetermined data sequence, or an indication configured to: trigger the second device to include the predetermined data sequence in the backscatter signal, or instruct the second device to not include the predetermined data sequence in the backscatter signal.
20. Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
21. Regarding claim 13. The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein the first device is configured to at least one of receive and process a predetermined data sequence in the first signal and the predetermined data sequence in the backscatter signal to derive an error estimate for the backscatter signal and to transmit the error estimate in the feedback signal; pre-store a predetermined data sequence in the first device and receive the predetermined data signal in the backscatter signal to derive an error estimate for the backscatter signal and to transmit the error estimate in the feedback signal.
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elshafie et al US 2025/0202534 A1 teaches a system which allows a source device to indicate a joint operation mode by which the source device may communicate information with a destination device via a backscatter device. The source device transmits, to a destination device, an indication of one of a plurality of joint operation modes of the source device and the backscatter device, and transmits a signal carrying first information. The signal carrying the first information is configured to activate the backscatter device to communicate a signal carrying second information from the backscatter device to the destination device, and the one of the plurality of joint operation modes indicates the first information and the second information. The destination device receives the signal carrying the second information from the backscatter device. Other aspects provide considerations which the source device, the backscatter device, and destination device may apply for beam management.
Dasala et al US 2025/0202564 A1 teaches a network entity can transmit, to a second network entity, information indicative of a request for one or more beam training resources associated with beamforming between the network entity and the second network entity. A downlink-reference signal (DL-RS) repetition corresponding to the request can be received from the second network entity. A respective measurement value associated with the DL-RS on one or more respective beam ports of a plurality of beam ports associated with a beamforming antenna array of the network entity can be determined. Measurement information indicative of one or more of a ranked order of the plurality of beam ports based on the respective measurement values or indicative of the respective measurement values can be transmitted from the network entity to the second network entity.
Conclusion
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights