Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/112,767

LIGHT-BASED SOUND GENERATION AND SOUND HARVESTING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 22, 2023
Examiner
GORDON, BRYAN P
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
741 granted / 965 resolved
+8.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
986
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 965 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 20B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 102 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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Svanstrom (Analytical Photoacoustic Model of Laser-Induced Ultrasound…..). Considering claim 1, Svanstrom (Figure 4.5) teaches a system comprising: a light source (page 30 + 2nd paragraph) configured to output a modulated light signal at a frequency (page 30 + 2nd paragraph); and an absorber layer (page 30 + PET + 2nd paragraph) positioned to receive the modulated light signal, the absorber layer being substantially non-transparent (page 30 + PET + 2nd paragraph) and configured to output a sound wave having a substantially similar frequency as the frequency of the modulated light signal when receiving the modulated light signal (the limitation is a goal of the invention and therefore does not have any structure that the prior art does not already teach). Considering claim 2, Svanstrom (Figure 4.5) teaches an impedance matching (page 30 + glass substrate + 2nd paragraph) layer disposed on the absorber layer between the light source and the absorber layer, the impedance matching layer being substantially transparent (page 30 + glass substrate + 2nd paragraph). Considering claim 3, Svanstrom (Figure 4.5) teaches wherein the impedance matching layer has substantially similar acoustic impedance as the absorber layer (page 30 + glass substrate + 2nd paragraph). Considering claim 4, Svanstrom (Figure 4.5) teaches wherein the impedance matching layer (page 30 + glass substrate + 2nd paragraph) is thicker than the absorber layer (page 30 + PET + 2nd paragraph). Considering claim 5, Svanstrom (Figure 4.5) teaches an energy harvester (page 30 + ultrasonic transducer + 2nd-3rd paragraph) configured to receive the sound wave output by the absorber layer when the absorber layer receives the modulated light signal. Considering claim 11, Svanstrom (Figure 4.5) teaches a system comprising: a light source (page 30 + 2nd paragraph) configured to output a modulated light signal at a frequency; an absorber layer positioned to receive the modulated light signal, the absorber layer (page 30 + PET + 2nd paragraph) being substantially non-transparent and configured to output a sound wave having a substantially similar frequency as the frequency of the modulated light signal when receiving the modulated light signal (page 30 + PET + 2nd paragraph); an impedance matching layer (page 30 + glass substrate + 2nd paragraph) disposed on the absorber layer between the light source and the absorber layer, the impedance matching layer being substantially transparent, the impedance matching layer has a substantially similar acoustic impedance as the absorber layer (page 30 + glass substrate + 2nd paragraph) and an energy harvester (page 30 + ultrasonic transducer + 2nd-3rd paragraph) configured to receive the sound wave output by the absorber layer when the absorber layer receives the modulated light signal (page 30 + 2nd-3rd paragraph). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 6-8, 12-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svanstrom (Analytical Photoacoustic Model of Laser-Induced Ultrasound…..) and in view of Maile (PG Pub 20100317978). Considering claim 17, Svanstrom (Figure 4.5) teaches a system comprising: a light source (page 30 + 2nd paragraph) configured to output a modulated light signal at a frequency; an absorber layer (page 30 + PET + 2nd paragraph) positioned to receive the modulated light signal, the absorber layer being substantially non-transparent and configured to output a sound wave having a substantially similar frequency as the frequency of the modulated light signal when receiving the modulated light signal (page 30 + 2nd paragraph) and an energy harvester (page 30 + ultrasonic transducer + 2nd-3rd paragraph) configured to receive the sound wave output by the absorber layer when the absorber layer receives the modulated light signal. However, Svanstrom does not teach the energy harvester configured to be implanted within a mammal, wherein the energy harvester is configured to be electrically connected to a medical device implanted within the mammal. Maile (Figures 2-6) teaches an energy harvester (104 + paragraph 0072) configured to be implanted within a mammal, wherein the energy harvester is configured to be electrically connected to a medical device implanted within the mammal (32 + paragraph 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the energy harvester configured to be implanted within a mammal, wherein the energy harvester is configured to be electrically connected to a medical device implanted within the mammal into Svanstrom’s device for the benefit of charging the device without needing an external recharging device at a clinic. Considering claim 18, Svantrom (Figure 4.5) teaches an impedance matching layer (page 30 + glass substrate + 2nd paragraph) disposed on the absorber layer between the light source and the absorber layer, the impedance matching layer being substantially transparent, the impedance matching layer has a substantially similar acoustic impedance as the absorber layer (page 30 + 2nd paragraph). Considering claim 19, Svantrom (Figure 4.5) teaches a piezoelectric sensor configured to generate a current when receiving the sound wave from the absorber (page 30 + ultrasonic transducer + 2nd-3rd paragraph). However, Svantrom does not teach an energy storage device in communication with the piezoelectric sensor, the energy storage device configured to charged when receiving the current from the piezoelectric sensor, the energy storage device being configured to supply power to the medical device implanted within the mammal. Maile (Figures 2-6) an energy storage device (paragraph 0065) in communication with the piezoelectric sensor, the energy storage device configured to charged when receiving the current from the piezoelectric sensor, the energy storage device being configured to supply power to the medical device implanted within the mammal (paragraphs 0047 + 0065 + 0070). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an energy storage device in communication with the piezoelectric sensor, the energy storage device configured to charged when receiving the current from the piezoelectric sensor, the energy storage device being configured to supply power to the medical device implanted within the mammal into Svantrom’s device for the benefit of charging the device without needing an external recharging device at a clinic. Considering claim 20, Maile (Figures 2-6) teaches wherein the medical device is an implantable cardiac monitor (paragraphs 0047 + 0070). Considering claims 6 and 12, Svantrom (Figure 4.5) teaches a piezoelectric sensor configured to generate a current when receiving the sound wave from the absorber (page 30 + ultrasonic transducer + 2nd-3rd paragraph). However, Svantrom does not teach an energy storage device in communication with the piezoelectric sensor, the energy storage device configured to charged when receiving the current from the piezoelectric sensor. Maile (Figures 2-6) an energy storage device (paragraph 0065) in communication with the piezoelectric sensor, the energy storage device configured to charged when receiving the current from the piezoelectric sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an energy storage device in communication with the piezoelectric sensor, the energy storage device configured to charged when receiving the current from the piezoelectric sensor into Svantrom’s device for the benefit of charging the device without needing an external recharging device at a clinic. Considering claims 7 and 13, Maile (Figures 2-6) teaches wherein the energy harvester is selectively located under the skin of a mammal (paragraph 0047). Considering claims 8 and 14, Svantrom (Figure 4.5) in view of Maile (Figures 2-6) teaches wherein a first side of the absorber layer (page 30 + PET + 2nd paragraph) faces towards the light source and a second side of the absorber layer is configured to come into physical contact with the skin of the mammal (paragraph 0047 of Maile). Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svanstrom (Analytical Photoacoustic Model of Laser-Induced Ultrasound…..) and in view of Guo (PG Pub 20150316511). Considering claims 9 and 15, Svanstrom teaches the absorber layer as described above. However, Svanstrom does not teach wherein the absorber layer is made from polydimethlsiloxane (PDMS). Guo teaches wherein the absorber layer is made from polydimethlsiloxane (PDMS) (paragraph 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the absorber layer is made from polydimethlsiloxane (PDMS) into Svantrom device for the benefit of using a common and well-known material as a matter of obvious design choice. Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svanstrom (Analytical Photoacoustic Model of Laser-Induced Ultrasound…..) and in view of Rotzoll (PG Pub 20220238790). Considering claims 10 and 16, Svanstrom teaches the light source as described above. However, Svanstrom does not teach wherein the light source is one or more light-emitting diodes. Rotzoll (Figure 41A) teaches wherein the light source is one or more light-emitting diodes (30 + paragraph 0207). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the light source is one or more light-emitting diodes into Svanstrom’s device for the benefit of providing a source for the light. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.. 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, Dedei K Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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. /BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 15, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604666
LAMINATED PIEZOELECTRIC ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603638
ACOUSTIC WAVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603637
PIEZOELECTRIC VIBRATION DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604667
PIEZOELECTRIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588417
PIEZOELECTRIC ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+14.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 965 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month