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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9,15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-3,6-7 recite “the method for updating an RIS beam of claim 1” should be “the method for updating the RIS beam of claim 1”.
Claim 3 further recites “corresponding to the reflection direction” should be “corresponding to the reflection directions”.
Claim 4 recites “The method for updating an RIS beam according to claim 3” should be “The method for updating the RIS beam to claim 3”.
Claim 4 further recites “the channel power value” should be “the channel power values”.
Claim 5 recite “The method for updating an RIS beam to claim 3” should be “The method for updating the RIS beam to claim 3”.
Claim 5 further recites “the channel power value” should be “the channel power values”.
Claim 7 recites “a channel power values” should be “channel power values”.
“RIS” in claims 8,15 should be spelled out, since it is the first introduction.
Claim 8 further recites “channel power values corresponding to the reflection direction of the second polarization” should be “channel power values corresponding to the reflection direction of the second polarizations”.
Claim 9 further recites “the input of the first polarization and the second polarization” should be “the inputs of the first polarization and the second polarization”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2,8-9,16,18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction" in page 1 in the adjusting step.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the RIS controller" in page 1.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the RIS" in page 2 of the preamble.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the RIS beam configuration information" in page 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the RIS controller" in page 5.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the adjustment" in page 5.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2,8-9,16,18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. In addition, the objection of claims 2-9 needed to be overcome.
Claims 3-7,10-14,17 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.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Reclaims 1-7
Prior art reference failed to teach or disclose method for updating a beam in a Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface (RIS), comprising: receiving data from a base station using a first polarization and receiving an RIS beamforming reference signal using a second polarization; fixing a reflection direction of the first polarization and sequentially changing a reflection direction of the second polarization to transmit a reflected wave; and adjusting the direction of the second polarization based on an optimal second polarization direction control information, wherein the optimal second polarization direction control information is determined according to channel power values corresponding to the reflection directions of the second polarization.
Reclaims 8-14
Prior art reference failed to teach or disclose In the RIS of a mobile communication system, the RIS comprises: A transceiver configured to receive data from a base station using a first polarization of a dual-polarized signal and to receive an RIS beamforming reference signal using a second polarization; and A processor configured to fix a reflection direction of the first polarization and sequentially change a reflection direction of the second polarization to transmit reflected waves, and to adjust a direction of the second polarization based on an optimal second polarization direction control information, which is determined according to channel power values corresponding to the reflection direction of the second polarization.
Reclaims 15-19
Prior art reference failed to teach or disclose A base station in a mobile communication system, comprising: a transceiver; and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to transmit data to an RIS using a first polarization and transmit an RIS beamforming reference signal using a second polarization through the transceiver to prevent communication interruption.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art reference Dai (et al. US 2022/0322321) discloses reconfigurable intelligent surface information update.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHEL GUARINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/RAHEL GUARINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632