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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without reciting an inventive concept. Under Step 2A (Prong 1), the independent claims recite a combination of mathematical concepts and mental processes. Specifically, determining “first indication information” based on a “second Huygens equivalent surface” involves mathematical surface calculations and data transformations that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The language of: a receiving signal, determining indication information, and sending that information constitutes an abstract mental process of gathering data, analyzing it through mathematical calculation, and outputting the result. Under Step 2A (Prong 2), the claims fail to integrate these judicial exceptions into a practical application because the recited actions of “receiving,” “sending,” or utilizing a generic “interface circuit” and “processor” represent mere generic pre-solution and post-solution activity that does not functionally alter or improve the physical operation of the underlying hardware. Under Step 2B, executing these mental steps and mathematical surface determinations on conventional communication hardware represents well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, providing nothing “significantly more” to transform the abstract idea into eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2–9, 11–18, and 20 additional limitations fail to overcome the eligibility deficiencies of the independent claims. The added features merely elaborate on additional mathematical concepts and pen-and-paper mental processes, such as calculating normalized cross-correlation coefficients, solid angle ranges, compression ratios, or parameter differences relative to previous indications (claims 3–5, 8, 12–14, 17), or defining mathematical field vectors (claims 2, 11, 20). The remaining limitations recite generic data management rules, such as signaling within a channel coherence time or referencing default reference signals associated with a Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface (claims 6–7, 9, 15–16, 18). Whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, performing additional mathematical calculations on paper or transmitting standard signaling parameter values using generic communication components does not amount to an inventive concept, as these limitations remain conventional data processing and generic transmission activities.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2012124552 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20200150311 A1), and further in view of Avanaki (US 20200359887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches: “a communication method, comprising: receiving a first receiving signal” ([FIG. 4, Step 401] discloses a device receiving the signal relating to a base station), and
“and sending first indication information, wherein the first indication information comprises indication information” ([FIG. 4, Step 405] discloses sending back indication information to the same source of the receiving signal).
Yang differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the limitations:
“…[a first receiving signal] based on a first Huygens equivalent surface”,
and
“and the second Huygens equivalent surface corresponds to the first receiving signal”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Zhang teaches:
“… [a first receiving signal] based on a first Huygens equivalent surface” ([0100] surface 180-1 may be a Huygens metasurface. First surface 180-1 is part of a substrate 115, which in turn is part of optical device 110. [0102] discloses that the optical device 110 receives an optical signal 135 and redirects it (136). As the Huygens surface is part of optical device 110 through substrate 115, a received signal is based on the first Huygens surface),
and
“…and the second Huygens equivalent surface corresponds to the first receiving signal” [0100] surface 180-1 and 180-2 may be Huygens metasurfaces. Second surface 180-2 is part of a substrate 115, which in turn is part of optical device 110. [0102] discloses that the optical device 110 receives optical signal and redirects them (135, 136). Because the Huygens surface 180-2 is part of optical device 110 through substrate 115, the second Huygens surface 180-2 must have some sort of relationship to the received optical signal 135 as is passes through optical device 110. Thus, the second Huygens surface corresponds to a first signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the transmissions of Yang with the Huygens surfaces of Zhang, for the advantage of being able to help manipulate electromagnetic waves, through the transmission of information relating to Huygens surfaces.
The combination of Yang and Zhang differ from the claimed invention in that it does not teach the limitation: “…wherein the first indication information comprises indication information of at least one Huygens equivalent surface, the indication information of the at least one Huygens equivalent surface is determined based on a second Huygens equivalent surface”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Avanaki teaches: “… wherein the first indication information comprises indication information of at least one Huygens equivalent surface, the indication information of the at least one Huygens equivalent surface is determined based on a second Huygens equivalent surface” ([0043], optical information may relate to an Extended Huygens-Fresnel model, which is known by one in the field to encompass Huygens surfaces. Thus, the optical information acts as indication information based on any sort of Huygens-equivalent surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the signal communication and Huygen surfaces of Yang and Zhang respectively, with the indication information as taught by Avanaki, for the advantages of being able to efficiently manipulate electromagnetic waves through the transmission of information relating to Huygens surfaces.
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches:
“a communication method, comprising: sending a first receiving signal” ([FIG. 4, Step 401] discloses a base station sending a signal to a device),
and
“and receiving first indication information, wherein the first indication information comprises indication information” ([FIG. 4, Step 405] discloses the base station receiving the indication information).
Yang differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the limitations:
“…and the second Huygens equivalent surface corresponds to the first receiving signal”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Zhang teaches:
“…and the second Huygens equivalent surface corresponds to the first receiving signal” [0100] surface 180-1 and 180-2 may be Huygens metasurfaces. Second surface 180-2 is part of a substrate 115, which in turn is part of optical device 110. [0102] discloses that the optical device 110 receives optical signal and redirects them (135, 136). Because the Huygens surface 180-2 is part of optical device 110 through substrate 115, the second Huygens surface 180-2 must have some sort of relationship to the received optical signal 135 as is passes through optical device 110. Thus, the second Huygens surface corresponds to a first signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the transmissions of Yang with the Huygens surfaces of Zhang, for the advantage of being able to help manipulate electromagnetic waves, through the transmission of information relating to Huygens surfaces.
The combination of Yang and Zhang differ from the claimed invention in that it does not teach the limitation: “…[wherein the first indication information comprises indication information] of at least one Huygens equivalent surface, the indication information of the at least one Huygens equivalent surface is determined based on a second Huygens equivalent surface”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Avanaki teaches: “…[wherein the first indication information] comprises indication information of at least one Huygens equivalent surface, the indication information of the at least one Huygens equivalent surface is determined based on a second Huygens equivalent surface” ([0043], optical information may relate to an Extended Huygens-Fresnel model, which is known by one in the field to encompass Huygens surfaces. Thus, the optical information acts as indication information based on any sort of Huygens-equivalent surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the signal communication and Huygen surfaces of Yang and Zhang respectively, with the indication information as taught by Avanaki, for the advantages of being able to efficiently manipulate electromagnetic waves through the transmission of information relating to Huygens surfaces.
Regarding claim 19, Yang teaches: “a communication apparatus, comprising: an interface circuit configured to: receive a first receiving signal” ([FIG. 4, Step 401] discloses a device receiving the signal relating to a base station),
and
“…and send first indication information, wherein the first indication information comprises indication information” ([FIG. 4, Step 405] discloses sending back indication information to the same source of the receiving signal).
Yang differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the limitations:
“…[a first receiving signal] based on a first Huygens equivalent surface”,
and
“…wherein the second Huygens equivalent surface corresponds to the first receiving signal”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Zhang teaches:
“… [a first receiving signal] based on a first Huygens equivalent surface” ([0100] surface 180-1 may be a Huygens metasurface. First surface 180-1 is part of a substrate 115, which in turn is part of optical device 110. [0102] discloses that the optical device 110 receives an optical signal 135 and redirects it (136). As the Huygens surface is part of optical device 110 through substrate 115, a received signal is based on the first Huygens surface),
and
“…wherein the second Huygens equivalent surface corresponds to the first receiving signal” [0100] surface 180-1 and 180-2 may be Huygens metasurfaces. Second surface 180-2 is part of a substrate 115, which in turn is part of optical device 110. [0102] discloses that the optical device 110 receives optical signal and redirects them (135, 136). Because the Huygens surface 180-2 is part of optical device 110 through substrate 115, the second Huygens surface 180-2 must have some sort of relationship to the received optical signal 135 as is passes through optical device 110. Thus, the second Huygens surface corresponds to a first signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the transmissions of Yang with the Huygens surfaces of Zhang, for the advantage of being able to help manipulate electromagnetic waves, through the transmission of information relating to Huygens surfaces.
The combination of Yang and Zhang differ from the claimed invention in that it does not teach the limitations:
“…and a processor configured to determine the indication information of the at least one Huygens equivalent surface based on a second Huygens equivalent surface”,
and
“…[wherein the first indication information comprises indication information] of at least one Huygens equivalent surface”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Avanaki teaches:
“…and a processor configured to determine the indication information of the at least one Huygens equivalent surface based on a second Huygens equivalent surface” ([0038-0039], system 100 processes optical information, and additionally includes processor 105. [0043], optical information may relate to an Extended Huygens-Fresnel model, which is known by one in the field to encompass Huygens surfaces. Thus, the optical information acts as indication information based on any sort of Huygens-equivalent surface),
and
“…[wherein the first indication information comprises indication information] of at least one Huygens equivalent surface” ([0038-0039], system 100 processes optical information, and additionally includes processor 105. [0043], optical information may relate to an Extended Huygens-Fresnel model, which is known by one in the field to encompass Huygens surfaces. Thus, the optical information acts as indication information based on any sort of Huygens-equivalent surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the signal communication and Huygen surfaces of Yang and Zhang respectively, with the indication information as taught by Avanaki, for the advantages of being able to efficiently manipulate electromagnetic waves through the transmission of information relating to Huygens surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/BENJAMIN H. NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights