Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/158,655

USE OF ULTRASONIC TONES TO INDUCE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Examiner
LANGHALS, RENEE C
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Reviva Softworks Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
82 granted / 139 resolved
-11.0% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+47.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
179
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.7%
+17.7% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 139 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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 Objections Claims 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 appears to be written in an independent form, yet also refers back to the other independent claim 1. In an interpretation, claim 12 may be construed as an independent claim; and in another interpretation it may also be construed as a dependent claim. In order to prevent any foreseeable ambiguity, it is suggested to bring the entire claim 1 in to the claim 12 to have the claim construed as a proper independent claim; or, correct the dependency of the claim 12 (as shown in other depending claims e.g. claim 2, etc.) to have the claim construed as a proper dependent claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15 appears to be written in an independent form, yet also refers back to the other independent claim 1. In an interpretation, claim 15 may be construed as an independent claim; and in another interpretation it may also be construed as a dependent claim. In order to prevent any foreseeable ambiguity, it is suggested to bring the entire claim 1 in to the claim 15 to have the claim construed as a proper independent claim; or, correct the dependency of the claim 15 (as shown in other depending claims e.g. claim 2, etc.) to have the claim construed as a proper dependent claim. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-3 and 7-16 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. Regarding claim 1, the fourth line of claim 1 recites “a controller for controlling the speaker to output a composite signal” and lines 9-14 of claim 1 recite that the composite signal comprises ultrasonic frequencies. The specification discloses the use of a smartphone speaker however standard speakers are not designed to produce ultrasonic frequencies. Therefore it is unclear how a speaker is controlled to output a composite signal of ultrasonic frequencies. Claims 2-3, 7-12, and 16 are also rejected due to their dependency. Claims 3, 9, 12, and 15 similarly recite limitations regarding control of the speaker to output ultrasonic frequencies, therefore claims 3, 9, 12, and 15 are also unclear. Regarding claim 1, line five of claim 1 recites “a microphone configured to sample the composite signal reflected by a user”. However a microphone is not capable of sampling a signal. A microphone is an analog transducer that converts sound waves into electrical voltage. Therefore it is unclear how a microphone is being configured to sample the composite signal reflected by a user. Claims 2-3, 7-12, and 16 are also rejected due to their dependency. Claim 7 similarly recites a limitation regarding the sampling of the microphone, therefore claim 7 is also unclear. Regarding claims 1 and 13, lines 12-15 of claim 1 and lines 6-9 of claim 13 recite “wherein a first auxiliary tone has an ultrasonic frequency that is equal to the reference frequency minus a stimulus frequency, a second auxiliary tone has an ultrasonic frequency that is equal to the reference frequency plus the stimulus frequency”. The frequencies of the first auxiliary tone and the second auxiliary tone are made in reference to the reference frequency and a stimulus frequency. The values of the reference frequency and the stimulus frequency are not defined and are therefore variable, therefore it is unclear what frequencies can be used for the first auxiliary tone and the second auxiliary tone. Claims 2-3 and 7-16 are also rejected due to their dependency. Regarding claim 13, lines 14-15 of claim 13 recites “determining a shift in the spectral energy distribution of the sampled reflected composite signal”. However claim 13 previously recites “has a symmetrical spectral energy distribution about the pilot frequency”. The symmetrical spectral energy distribution is interpreted to be in relation to the composite signal output. Therefore it is unclear if the spectral energy distribution of the sampled reflected composite signal is the same or different from the symmetrical spectral energy distribution in relation to the composite signal output. Fore examination purposes the limitation will be read as “determining a shift in a spectral energy distribution of the sampled reflected composite signal”. Claims 14 and 15 are also rejected due to their dependency. Regarding claims 1 and 13, lines 10-18 of claim 1 and lines 6-15 of claim 13 recite “the reference frequency” multiple times however “an ultrasonic reference frequency” was defined in line 8 of claim 1 and line 4 of claim 13. Therefore it is unclear if each recitation of the reference frequency is the same or different from the ultrasonic reference frequency previously defined. For examination purposes each recitation of “the reference frequency” will be interpreted as “the ultrasonic reference frequency”. Claims 2-3 and 7-16 are also rejected due to their dependency. Regarding claim 16, the first line of claim 16 recites “an apparatus according to claim 1”, however an apparatus was previously defined in claim 1. Therefore it is unclear if the apparatus of claim 16 is the same or different from the apparatus of claim 1. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as “the apparatus according to claim 1”. 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites software per se. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 12, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-3, 7-11, 14, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Shouldice (US 20200367810) discloses “methods and devices provide physiological movement detection” (Abstract). Shouldice also discloses “the “device” or “system” is capable of transmitting and/or sensing reflected signals, such as with one or more transmitters and/or sensor(s) (i.e. speaker(s), microphone(s), infrared sensors, radio frequency transmitter/receiver etc.) being either integrated, and/or externally connectable) to detect physiological movement” ([0005]). Paragraph [0099] of Shouldice discloses “FIG. 9B shows a cosine-like functional shape of the dual tone, with the zero points (resultant zero crossings)”. Paragraph [0148] of Shouldice discloses “to localize motion—one can use range gating—for that reason it is desirable to use FMCW, UWB, or some other modulation scheme such as frequency-shift keying (FSK) or phase-shift keying (PSK)”. However Shouldice does not teach a pilot tone of the reference frequency and two auxiliary tones of equal amplitude, and therefore also does not teach the claimed frequencies and amplitudes for the pilot tone and the two auxiliary tones. Pyo (KR20170136742A) discloses multiple tones with a tone that can be interpreted as a pilot tone with a reference frequency and two auxiliary tones that have the claimed frequencies as shown in Fig. 2 of Pyo. However Pyo does not teach different amplitudes for the tones. Takahashi (JP2005334163A) discloses two ultrasonic waveforms with different frequencies and a combined waveform as shown in Figs. 2a-2c. Takahashi also discloses the envelope of the combine signal being sinusoidal “(c) shows a composite ultrasonic waveform obtained by combining (a) and (b). The envelope of this composite ultrasonic wave is the difference frequency between the ultrasonic waves of different frequencies. For example, if the frequency of (a) is 40,000 Hz and the frequency of (b) is 40,010 Hz, the frequency of the envelope of the synthesized ultrasonic wave of (c) will be 10 Hz” ([0019]). However Takahashi does not teach a pilot tone of the reference frequency and two auxiliary tones of equal amplitude, and therefore also does not teach the claimed frequencies and amplitudes for the pilot tone and the two auxiliary tones. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6. 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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. /R.C.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575890
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVED ELECTROMAGNETIC TRACKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564450
Configurable System and Method for Indicating Deviation from a Medical Device Placement Pathway
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12527631
REAL TIME FUSED HOLOGRAPHIC VISUALIZATION AND GUIDANCE FOR DEPLOYMENT OF STRUCTURAL HEART REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12527516
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR QUANTIFYING THE PROGRESSION OF A PREGNANCY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12521089
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ON-PERSON WEARABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
59%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+47.6%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 139 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