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 (140),
the electronic device (140) to be recharged comprising a first ultrasonic transducer (not shown but implicit), a battery (not shown but discussed in par 0034), and an electric circuit configured to convert electrical signals generated at the first transducer under the action of a received ultrasonic wave into electric signals to recharge the battery (Par 0034 “The implant assembly 140 includes one or more receiving ultrasonic transducer elements that receive the ultrasound energy and convert it into electrical energy to power an implanted medical device. The implanted medical device can be powered directly from the converted electrical energy or indirectly, for example via an energy storage device included in the implant assembly 140. Examples of such an energy storage device include a rechargeable battery, a capacitor, or other energy storage device.”)
wherein the emitting device comprises at least one second ultrasonic transducer (120) and an electronic circuit (100) to control said at least one second ultrasonic transducer, (Fig. 1)
wherein the control electronic circuit is configured to:
apply to said at least one second ultrasonic transducer an excitation electric signal (EXC) in order to induce the emission, by said at least second ultrasonic transducer, of an ultrasonic wave towards the electronic device; said ultrasonic wave being configured for recharging the battery of the electronic device (Par 0034, 35 and Fig. 1 “The implant assembly 140 includes one or more receiving ultrasonic transducer elements that receive the ultrasound energy and convert it into electrical energy to power an implanted medical device. The implanted medical device can be powered directly from the converted electrical energy or indirectly, for example via an energy storage device included in the implant assembly 140. Examples of such an energy storage device include a rechargeable battery, a capacitor, or other energy storage device.”)
read a feedback electric signal generated by said at least one second ultrasonic transducer under the action of a part of said ultrasonic wave directly reflected by the electronic device; without being converted into electric power by the first ultrasonic transducer (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, the adjustment being made only on the basis of the generated signal representative of the energy of the directly reflected portion of the ultrasonic wave, without relying on any signal generated by an active RF or ultrasonic communication circuit of the electronic device. (Par 0067, 82 and 84 “The transmitter apparatus 420 further includes stepper motors 423, 424, which can rotate and/or translate the transmitting transducers 422 (e.g., with respect to the X-Y plane), for example in response to the above-described feedback loop and/or detection of reflected power.” Reflected Power indicated that when a transmitted signal hits an object, a medium change, or an impedance mismatch, some energy bounces backward. High reflected power means the system is inefficient or poorly aligned. How They Work Together: When the system's sensors detect high reflected power or data from a feedback loop indicating the signal is misaligned it triggers the stepper motors. The motors physically adjust the transmitting transducers to the optimal angle or position, correcting the alignment in real time for maximum transmission efficiency.)
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 at least one second 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 second 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 second 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 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Applicant argues that Radziemski does not disclose a feedback loop based on directly back‑reflected charging ultrasound, nor any control circuit that adjusts ultrasound frequency based on such reflected signals.
The applicant contends that the present invention is distinguished because the feedback loop is entirely internal to the emitting device and relies on monitoring a portion of the charging ultrasound wave that is directly reflected back to the emitter. The applicant further asserts that Radziemski only teaches feedback through active RF communication or through separate imaging pulses, and therefore does not disclose adjusting the emission frequency based on reflected charging energy.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Radziemski explicitly teaches monitoring back‑reflected acoustic energy from the implant and adjusting the transmitted signal based on that reflection. Paragraph [0084] states that the transmitter or controller “constantly (or periodically) monitors the transmitter impedance as well as back reflected signal from a tissue layer or the implant… and adjust[s] the signal accordingly.” This language directly describes the same type of reflected‑signal‑based feedback that the applicant claims as a point of distinction. The passage is not limited to “dry coupling,” nor does it restrict the adjustment to any particular parameter. It broadly teaches adjusting the transmitted signal including frequency based on reflected acoustic energy.
Furthermore, paragraph [0067] explains that the controller may “monitor and change the frequency of the ultrasound source” and that the frequency may be placed under the control of a “frequency feedback loop.” When this disclosure is read together with the reflected‑signal monitoring of paragraph [0084], it becomes clear that the reference teaches adjusting the ultrasound frequency based on feedback derived from acoustic reflections. This directly overlaps with the amended claim language.
2. Applicant argues that Radziemski requires active communication circuitry in the implant, whereas the present invention does not.
The applicant asserts that their invention avoids the need for a communication circuit in the implant, while Radziemski relies on active RF communication between the implant and the external transmitter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Radziemski expressly teaches a passive acoustic feedback mechanism that does not require any transmitter in the implant. Paragraphs [0086]–[0087] describe how the implant may modulate its electrical load to create detectable changes in the reflected acoustic wave, enabling “two‑way communication… without a transmitter in the implant.” This disclosure directly contradicts the applicant’s assertion that Radziemski requires active communication hardware. The reference clearly teaches passive feedback based on reflected charging ultrasound, which is the same mechanism the applicant now claims as novel.
3. Applicant argues that Radziemski uses separate “imaging acoustic waves” rather than the charging wave itself for feedback.
The applicant maintains that the present invention is distinguished because it uses the charging wave itself for feedback, whereas Radziemski allegedly uses separate imaging pulses to determine alignment or coupling.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Radziemski repeatedly describes using the charging ultrasound wave itself for feedback. Paragraph [0056] explains that misalignment can be detected by measuring the magnitude of the “back reflected acoustic signal” from the receiver surface. Paragraph [0083] further describes optimizing alignment by maximizing or minimizing this reflected charging energy. These passages show that the charging wave not a separate imaging pulse is used for feedback. The applicant’s distinction is therefore not supported by the actual disclosure.
4. Applicant argues that paragraphs [0054], [0057], and [0084] do not disclose adjusting frequency based on reflected signals.
The applicant asserts that paragraph [0054] merely describes stepper motors responding to feedback, paragraph [0057] only discusses materials, and paragraph [0084] is vague and limited to coupling adjustments.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0084] explicitly teaches monitoring back‑reflected acoustic energy and adjusting the transmitted signal accordingly. When this is read in conjunction with paragraph [0067], which teaches a frequency feedback loop, the reference clearly discloses adjusting frequency based on reflected acoustic energy. The applicant’s attempt to isolate paragraph [0084] from the broader context of the reference is not persuasive.
5. Applicant argues that the dependent claims (5–10) remain allowable because the asserted deficiencies in Radziemski are not cured by Charthad or general knowledge.
The applicant maintains that because independent claim 1 is allegedly distinguishable, the dependent claims must also be allowable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the distinctions asserted for claim 1 are not supported, the dependent claims do not overcome the teachings of the cited art. Radziemski already discloses the core features the applicant relies upon, and the additional limitations in claims 5–10 do not impart patentability. The combinations cited in the §103 rejections therefore remain proper.
Conclusion
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/
05/28/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights