DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 12/31/2024 and 05/13/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 9 and 12 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 9 recites the limitation " the switching frequency from the plurality of different switching frequencies". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the switching frequency from the plurality of different switching frequencies". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7-10, 12-14, 16-22, 26 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rashidi (WO 2022049107 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rashidi teaches a method for communicating using ultrasonic waves (an implantable micro device with a high data rate capability based on ultrasonic backscattering, e.g. for communicating sensed data to an external device) comprising: receiving, at one or more ultrasonic transducers of an implantable device, ultrasonic waves transmitted by an interrogator (ultrasonic power signal received by the piezoelectric transducer from an external source). (Page.1, lines 5-10, Page.2, lines 15-35, Page.11, lines 5-10, Claims 1, 16, Figs.1-3, 5-6)
Rashidi also teaches emitting, from the one or more ultrasonic transducers of the implantable device, ultrasonic backscatter (backscattered signal emitted by piezoelectric transducer) comprising encoded data (time-encoding analog-to-digital converter), wherein the data is encoded into the ultrasonic backscatter by modulating a frequency (modulation frequency) of the ultrasonic backscatter. (Page.11, lines 5-30, Claims 1-2, 16, Figs.1-3, 5-6)
Regarding claim 2, Rashidi teaches selecting a switching frequency from a plurality of different switching frequencies to modulate the frequency of the ultrasonic backscatter, wherein the switching frequency is configured to encode the data into the ultrasonic backscatter. (Page.3, lines 32-33, Page.4, lines 1-2, Claims 1-2)
Regarding claim 3, Rashidi teaches wherein each switching frequency is associated with a different predetermined bit pattern. (Abstract, Page.3, lines 32-33, Page.4, lines 1-2, Page.11, lines 5-30, Claims 1-2)
Regarding claim 4, Rashidi teaches wherein modulating the frequency of the ultrasonic backscatter comprises switching a switch of the implantable device at the switching frequency. (Page.11, lines 5-30, Claims 1-2, 6-9)
Regarding claim 5, Rashidi teaches wherein each pre- determined bit pattern comprises two or more digital bits. (Page.16, lines 1-2, Fig.5)
Regarding claim 7, Rashidi teaches wherein the switching frequency is selected based at least on instructions received from the interrogator via the ultrasonic waves. (Abstract, Claims 1-2, 6-9)
Regarding claim 8, Rashidi teaches wherein the plurality of different switching frequencies is selected based on at least an intensity of the ultrasonic backscatter at a given frequency. (Page.6, lines 18-25, Page.17, lines 11-30, Figs.5, 7)
Regarding claim 9, Rashidi teaches detecting sensor information from one or more sensors of the implantable device, wherein the data comprises the sensor information, and selecting the switching frequency from the plurality of different switching frequencies is based at least on the sensor information. (Col.2, lines 24-35, Claims 1-2, 6-9)
Regarding claim 10, Rashidi teaches wherein the sensor information comprises one or more of a power level, pH, a temperature, a pressure, an electrophysiological pulse, and an analyte concentration. (Claim 11)
Regarding claim 12, Rashidi teaches determining operating status information of the implantable device, wherein the data comprises determined operating status information, and selecting the switching frequency from the plurality of different switching frequencies is based at least on the determined operating status information. (Page.4, line 26-Page.5, line 4, Claims 7-9)
Regarding claim 13, Rashidi teaches selecting a sequence of two or more switching frequencies from a plurality of different switching frequencies to encode the data, wherein each switching frequency is associated with a different predetermined bit pattern. (Page.13, line 20-Page.14, line 6)
Regarding claim 14, Rashidi teaches receiving, at the interrogator, the ultrasonic backscatter comprising the encoded data; decoding, at the interrogator, the ultrasonic backscatter received, wherein decoding the ultrasonic backscatter comprises analyzing an incoming frequency of the ultrasonic backscatter received at the interrogator to determine a computed switching frequency of a switch modulating the frequency of the ultrasonic backscatter, matching the computed switching frequency to a predetermined bit pattern, and recording the predetermined bit pattern as decoded data transferred from the implantable device. (Page.11, lines 5-30, Page.16, lines 20-26, Page.2, lines 15-35, Claims 1-2, 6-9, 16)
Regarding claim 16, Rashidi teaches adjusting a parameter of the ultrasonic waves transmitted by the interrogator based on the ultrasonic backscatter received from the implantable device. (Abstract, Page.2, lines 15-35, Page.11, lines 19-24)
Regarding claim 17, Rashidi teaches wherein modulating the frequency of the ultrasonic backscatter comprises switching a switch of the implantable device between an open state and a closed state at a switching frequency from a plurality of different switching frequencies. (Page.2, lines 31-35, Page.4, lines 26-33, Page.20, Claim 8)
Regarding claim 18, Rashidi teaches wherein the closed state shorts the one or more ultrasonic transducers of the implantable device. (Page.2, lines 31-35, Page.4, lines 26-33, Page.20, Claim 8)
Regarding claim 19, Rashidi teaches wherein the open state is a loaded configuration in which electrical energy is harvested from the ultrasonic waves and a maximum power is transferred from the ultrasonic waves to the implantable device to power the implantable device. (Page.2, lines 31-35, Page.4, lines 26-Page.5, line 5, Page.14, lines 22-29, Page.20, Claim 8)
Regarding claim 20, Rashidi teaches wherein switching the switch of the implantable device between the open state and the closed state is configured to periodically vary acoustic energy reflected by the implantable device. (Abstract, Page.2, lines 31-35, Page.4, lines 26-Page.5, line 5, Page.20)
Regarding claim 21, Rashidi teaches transmitting ultrasonic waves from the interrogator to the implantable device, wherein the ultrasonic waves instruct the implantable device to execute one or more functions. (Page.6, lines 22-25, Page.13, lines 5-11, Claim 1)
Regarding claim 22, Rashidi teaches wherein the one or more functions comprises determining average incident power from the ultrasonic waves. (Abstract, Page.2, lines 18-35, Page.4, lines 26-Page.5, line 5, Page.20, Claims 1, 14, 16)
Regarding claim 26, Rashidi teaches a device for communicating via ultrasonic waves, comprising: an ultrasonic transducer configured to receive ultrasonic waves and emit ultrasonic backscatter; a switch configured to modulate a frequency of the emitted ultrasonic backscatter; and a circuit configured to operate the switch to encode data in the emitted ultrasonic backscatter based on the frequency. (Page.1, lines 5-10, Page.2, lines 15-35, Page.11, lines 5-30, Claims 1-2, 16, Figs.1-3, 5-6)
Regarding claim 44, Rashidi teaches a system for communicating via ultrasonic waves, comprising: the device of claim 26 and an interrogator comprising: one or more ultrasonic transducers configured to receive the emitted ultrasonic backscatter and transmit the ultrasonic waves to the device; and a processor configured to decode the emitted ultrasonic backscatter. (Page.1, lines 5-10, Page.2, lines 15-35, Page.11, lines 5-30, Claims 1-2, 16, Figs.1-3, 5-6)
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashidi in view of Park (CN 105120759 B, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 6, Rashidi teaches pre-determined bit patterns associated with the plurality of different switching frequencies.
Rashidi does not explicitly teach Gray- coded.
Park teaches Gray- coded. (Page.2, lines 27-31, Page.5, lines 14-37, Claims 3, 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Rashidi to incorporate Gray- coded in order for only one bit to change at a time between adjacent values, which minimizes errors caused by timing, mechanical vibrations, or noise during transition
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645