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 .
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) 1-4, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radziemski et al. (US 2017/0319858)
Re Claim 1; Radziemski discloses a device (the devices on the left side of the tissue) to emit ultrasounds to wireless recharge an electronic device, wherein the emitting device comprises at least one ultrasonic transducer (120) and an electronic circuit (100) to control said ultrasonic transducer, (Fig. 1)
wherein the control electronic circuit is configured to: apply to said at least one ultrasonic transducer an excitation electric signal (EXC) in order to induce the emission, by said at least one ultrasonic transducer, of an ultrasonic wave towards the electronic device; (Par 0034, 35 and Fig. 1)
read a feedback electric signal generated by said at least one ultrasonic transducer under the action of a part of said ultrasonic wave reflected by the electronic device; (Par 0036 and 54)
generate a signal representative of the energy of the reflected portion of the ultrasonic wave, (Par 0054)
wherein the control electronic circuit comprises a feedback loop configured to adjust the frequency of said ultrasonic wave, so that the energy of said reflected part of the ultrasonic wave tends to a minimum value. (Par 0067, 82 and 84)
Re Claim 2; Radziemski discloses wherein the control electronic circuit is configured to apply to said at least one ultrasonic transducer an excitation electric signal (EXC) with frequency modulation, whose frequency continuously varies between a frequency fstart and a frequency fstop higher than fstart. (Par 0082)
Re Claim 3; Radziemski discloses wherein the feedback loop comprises a treatment circuit configured to detect the frequency f.sub.NZR where the energy of said reflected part of the ultrasonic wave can be minimized. (Par 0082)
Re Claim 4; Radziemski discloses wherein the treatment circuit is additionally configured to adjust the values of the frequencies f start and f.sub.stop so that they approach the frequency f.sub.NZR, thus reducing the energy of the reflected part of the ultrasonic wave. (Par 0082)
Re Claim 11; Radziemski discloses wherein the ultrasonic acoustic wave emitted by the ultrasonic transducer comprises a plurality of successive pulses.
which discloses in paragraph [0054] that the ultrasound transducer emits a signal comprising multiple pulses. The excitation signal (EXC) applied to the transducer induces emission of ultrasound waves in a pulsed manner. Figure 1 and paragraph [0034] further support this by describing the control circuit generating a signal to induce emission toward the electronic device. The concept of successive pulses is inherent in the described excitation and emission process.
Re Claim 12; Radziemski discloses wherein during each pulse, the emission frequency varies continuously from the frequency f_start at the beginning of the pulse to the frequency f_stop at the end of the pulse.
Radzowski teaches frequency variation during ultrasound emission. Paragraph [0057] describes a feedback loop that adjusts the frequency of the emitted ultrasound wave to match the reflected wave, implying dynamic frequency control. While the claim specifies a continuous sweep from f_start to f_stop, Radzowski’s system inherently varies frequency within each pulse to optimize transmission and minimize reflection. The continuous variation is a predictable implementation of frequency modulation known in the art, and thus anticipated.
Re Claim 13; Radziemski discloses wherein the treatment circuit is configured to, at the end of each pulse, adjust the values of the frequencies f_start and f_stop for the next pulse so that they approach the frequency f_max, thus reducing the energy of the reflected part of the ultrasonic wave.
Paragraph [0057] of Radzowski describes a feedback loop that adjusts the frequency of the control signal to minimize reflected acoustic energy. This implies that the system iteratively tunes the emission frequency toward an optimal value functionally equivalent to f_max to reduce reflection. The adjustment at the end of each pulse is a natural consequence of the feedback mechanism described. Therefore, this limitation is also anticipated by Radzowski.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radziemski in view of Charthad et al (US 2022/0131424).
Re Claim 9; Radziemski discloses wherein said at least one ultrasonic transducer comprises an emission transducer
Radziemski does not disclose a reception transducer.
However, Charthad discloses alternate transducer element may belong to either a transmit array or a receive array. wherein at least one ultrasonic transducer comprises an emission transducer and a reception transducer. (Par 0316)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used an alternate transducer having an emission transducer and a reception transducer in order to have a compact device which can perform both functions.
Re Claim 10; Radziemski discloses wherein said at least one ultrasonic transducer comprises a single transducer for the emission of said ultrasonic wave and for the reception of said reflected part of said ultrasonic wave. (Par 0091)
Re Claims 5 and 6; Charthad discloses wherein the control circuit comprises a detection circuit of the envelope of said feedback electric signal generated by said at least one ultrasonic transducer. (Par 0312)
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radziemski
Re Claim 7 and 8; Radziemski discloses wherein the control electronic circuit.
Radziemski does not disclose is configured to apply to said at least one ultrasonic transducer an impulse excitation electric signal and wherein the control electronic circuit is configured to apply to said at least one ultrasonic transducer a continuous excitation electric signal.
However, the use of impulse or "pulse-echo" methods for ultrasonic transducers is a fundamental and long-standing technique in many fields, including medical imaging, non-destructive testing, and range-finding. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be well aware of impulse-based systems for generating and detecting ultrasonic signals.
There is a clear motivation to use an impulse signal in a feedback-based system because it allows for easy measurement of the reflected signal's time-of-flight and energy.
Adding an impulse signal option is a predictable design choice based on the known principles of ultrasonic sensing. Also, applying a continuous wave signal (or a continuous wave with frequency modulation) is also a standard operating mode for ultrasonic transducers.
A POSITA would know that continuous wave signals are used for applications like Doppler sensing and material characterization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argues Radzinski doesn’t teach absorption of acoustic energy by the remote device or a feedback loop based on received energy. They emphasize that Radzinski minimizes reflected energy, not optimizes absorption.
However, the Examiner’s respectfully disagree,
While the applicant draws a distinction between minimizing reflection and maximizing absorption, Radzinski explicitly teaches a feedback loop that adjusts the frequency of the control signal to reduce reflected acoustic energy (see Radzinski, para [0057]). This inherently implies optimization of energy transfer. The system doesn’t need to measure absorption directly, minimizing reflection is a proxy for maximizing transmission efficiency.
Applicant’s Argues
Radzowski uses active RF communication and thus differs from their passive reflection-based system.
However, the Examiner’s respectfully disagree,
This is a mischaracterization. While Radzowski includes RF communication in some embodiments (see para [0097]), the rejection relies on the ultrasound-based feedback loop described in paras [0054], [0057], and [0084]. These passages describe a control circuit adjusting the ultrasound frequency based on reflected signals, precisely the mechanism claimed. The presence of RF in other embodiments doesn’t negate the anticipatory disclosure. The applicant’s invention isn’t distinguished by the absence of RF; it’s defined by the feedback mechanism, which Radzowski teaches.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
02/02/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836