Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/441,839

Medical Instrumentation Utilizing Narrowband Imaging

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 22, 2021
Examiner
CHIANG, MICHAEL
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nsv Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
1y 9m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
281 granted / 401 resolved
+2.1% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
412
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 401 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-19 are pending in the Application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the Objections and 112(b) Rejection previously presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/21/2025. 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) 1-2, 5-7, 9-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam et al., US 2016/0287063 A1 in view of Iwane, US 2021/0161372 A1 and further in view of Krivopisk et al., US 2014/0364691 A1 Regarding claim 1, Ramanujam discloses “An illumination source useful in performing digital imaging in conjunction with medical scopic instrumentation, the illumination source comprising a photoreceiving element positioned at a centrally-disposed … to receive reflected light from an anatomical region of interest (ROI) under study and create a digital image therefrom (118, Fig. 1, 5, 7).” at least one narrowband first-wavelength LED, positioned at a first emission… specifically formed to emit narrowband light (116b, Fig. 1 and 3, ¶ [0050]) at a first center wavelength λ1 associated with a first absorbance peak of the ROI under study (¶ [0071] “blue spectra”) wherein reflected light at the first center wavelength is directed … into the photoreceiving element for creating a first digital image exhibiting a high contrast between normal and abnormal areas in the ROI under study at the first center wavelength; and at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED (116c, Fig. 1 and 3), positioned at a second emission … the second… disposed in opposition to the first … (seen in Fig. 3, the LEDs are facing each other across the center) , the at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED specifically formed to emit narrowband light (116c, Fig. 1 and 3, ¶ [0050]) at a second center wavelength λ2 associated with a second absorbance peak of the ROI under study (¶ [0071] “green spectra”),.” However, Ramanujam does not disclose “wherein the at least one narrowband first-wavelength LED and the at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED are energized in a switching sequence including energizing the at least one narrowband first-wavelength LED for a first period of time and energizing the at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED for a second period of time different from the first period of time, the energizing of the at least one narrowband first-wavelength LED and the at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED are controlled to illuminate the ROI and create a second digital image exhibiting a high contrast between normal and abnormal areas in the ROI at the second wavelength, the at least one narrowband first-wavelength LED and the at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED controllable by an individual performing an examination, allowing for the capture of high contrast images at specific points in time during the examination” and that there are apertures for the photoreceiving element and the LEDs. Ramanujam does disclose that the device and light can be controlled by an individual (¶ [0046,0047] “The electronic device 102 may be configured to control the operation of the colposcope 100, to process captured images, and to interface with a user, such as medical personnel. In this example, the electronic device 102 is a smartphone, although it should be understood that the electronic device 102 may alternatively be any other type of computing device. “) Iwane discloses an endoscope system comprising two narrowband wavelengths lights (First and second illumination lights NR1, NR2, Fig. 28-29), and the system can have a switching system between the two illumination lights where one light is active at a time, for different period of time (seen in Fig. 6, control each illumination light at different time periods and for different durations) and the system captures images at those time periods (¶ [0062]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the system, as taught by Ramanujam, be controlled such that the light is sequentially switched between the light sources at different time periods, such as taught by Iwane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have switching between the light sources for selecting light that corresponds to specific tissue or blood vessel (Iwane, ¶ [0059-0060]). Krivopisk discloses a scopic instrument with an illumination source, with a photoreceiving element (116, Fig. 2A) positioned at a centrally-disposed aperture (256, Fig. 2A) of the illumination source to receive reflected light from an anatomical region of interest (ROI) under study and create a digital image therefrom, and similar apertures (242abc, Fig. 2A) for the LEDs (240abc, Fig. 2A). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the illumination source, as taught by Ramanujam, to include a housing with apertures for the photoreceiver and LEDs, such as taught by Krivopisk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a housing with apertures for providing protection to the components (Krivopisk, ¶ [0458-0459]) Regarding claim 2, Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the illumination source further comprises a white light source (Ramanujam 116a, Fig. 1 and 3, ¶ [0050]) for alternative illumination of the ROI (Ramanujam ¶ [0075]) the white light source positioned at an emission aperture selected from the group consisting of the first emission aperture, the second emission aperture, and a third emission aperture (the LEDs have an aperture over each one, as modified by Krivopisk in the rejection of claim 1 above).” Regarding claim 5, Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “each narrowband LED exhibits a FWHM of no greater than 30 nm (Ramanujam ¶ [0071] “425+-20 nm and 555+-20 nm, respectively”; ¶ [0088] “2 nm, 3.5 nm and 10 nm full width-half-maximum (FWHM) bandwidths)”).” Regarding claim 6 , Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the at least one narrowband first-wavelength LED comprises a plurality of separate LEDs (seen in Ramanujam, Fig. 3), disposed to illuminate selected areas of the ROI (Ramanujam seen in Fig. 3, ¶ [0050]), each first- wavelength LED of the plurality of first-wavelength separate LEDs positioned at a separate one of a plurality of first-wavelength emission apertures positioned around the centrally-disposed aperture of the photoreceiving element (seen in Ramanujam Fig. 3, the first LEDs are around the centrally-disposed photoreceiving element).” Regarding claim 7 , Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED comprises a plurality of separate LEDs (seen in Ramanujam, Fig. 3), disposed to illuminate selected areas of the ROI (Ramanujam seen in Fig. 3, ¶ [0050]), each second- wavelength LED of the plurality of second-wavelength separate LEDs positioned at a separate one of a plurality of first-wavelength emission apertures positioned around the centrally-disposed aperture of the photoreceiving element (seen in Ramanujam Fig. 3, the second LEDs are around the centrally-disposed photoreceiving element).” Regarding claim 9 , Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the at least one narrowband first-wavelength LED and the at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED are disposed at emission apertures proximate to each other in an array at defined locations around a periphery of the photoreceiving element positioned at the centrally-disposed aperture of the illumination source (Ramanujam 118, Fig. 1; Krivopisk, Fig. 2A).” Regarding claim 10, Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the illumination source is utilized in conjunction with a scopic system for viewing vasculature (Ramanujam ¶ [0071]), the first and second center wavelengths selected to be proximate to absorbance peaks of hemoglobin (Ramanujam ¶ [0071] “425±20 nm and 555±20 nm”).” Regarding claim 11, Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 10, as cited above, and further discloses “the at least one narrowband first-wavelength LED operates at a wavelength λ1≈540 nm and is referred to as an at least one green LED, and the at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED operates at a wavelength λ2≈415 nm and is referred to as an at least one blue LED (Ramanujam ¶ [0071]).” Regarding claim 12, Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 11, as cited above, and further discloses “the at least one green LED comprises a plurality of green LEDs all operating at a wavelength λ2≈540 nm (Ramanujam ¶ [0071] and Fig. 3).” Regarding claim 13, Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 11, as cited above, and further discloses “the at least one blue LED comprises a plurality of blue LEDs all operating at a wavelength λ2≈415 nm (Ramanujam ¶ [0071] and Fig. 3).” Regarding claim 14, Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 10, as cited above, and further discloses “the at least one green LED comprises a plurality of green LEDs all operating at a wavelength λ1≈540 nm, and the at least one blue LED comprises a plurality of blue LEDs all operating at a wavelength λ2≈415 nm (Ramanujam ¶ [0071] and Fig. 3).” Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk and further in view of Mizuyoshi, US 2009/0306478 A1. Regarding claim 4, Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the photoreceiving element comprises a combination of a CMOS detector (Ramanujam 118, ¶ [0071]) and filters (Ramanujam ¶ [0045).” However, Ramanujam does not explicitly disclose that the filters are “wavelength-dependent”. Mizuyoshi discloses an illumination device for use in endoscope with an imaging device that comprises a CMOS with a color filter (¶ [0178]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a color filter, such as taught by Mizuyohsi, to the photoreceiving element, as taught by Ramanujam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a color filter for allowing the detector to detect a specific wavelength band (Mizuyohsi, ¶ [0179]). Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam in view of Iwane and Krivopisk and further in view of Hsiao et al., “Identified early stage mycosis fungoides from psoriasis and atopic dermatitis using non-invasive color contrast enhancement by LEDs lighting”, OPTICAL AND QUANTUM ELECTRONICS, SPRINGER US, NEW YORK, vol. 47, no. 7, (2014-09-17), pg. 1599-1611. Regarding claim 15, Ramanujam in view of Oki and Krivopisk discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, except “the illumination source is utilized in conjunction with a dermatoscope, the first and second center wavelengths selected to be proximate to absorbance peaks of skin pigments.” Hsiao discloses a technique for imaging the skin using specific wavelengths that are proximate to absorbance peaks of skin pigments (section 3.2, RGBY LED with wavelengths 617, 530, 460, and 586 nm). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the illumination source, as taught by Ramanujam, be used for dermatoscope and the specific wavelengths, such as taught by Hsiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use those specific wavelengths for detecting skin lesions or other cancerous elements (Hsiao, section 1). Regarding claim 16, Ramanujam in view of Oki and Krivopisk and Hsiao discloses the invention of claim 16, as cited above, and further discloses “he at least one narrowband first-wavelength LED operates at a wavelength λ1≈625 nm and is referred to as an at least one red LED, and the at least one narrowband second-wavelength LED operates at a wavelength λ2≈580 nm and is referred to as an at least one yellow LED (Hsiao, section 3.2) Regarding claim 17, Ramanujam in view of Oki and Krivopisk and Hsiao discloses the invention of claim 16, as cited above, and further discloses “the at least one red LED comprises a plurality of red LEDs all operating at a wavelength λ1≈625 nm (Ramanujam Fig. 3 and Hsiao section 3.2).” Regarding claim 18, Ramanujam in view of Oki and Krivopisk and Hsiao discloses the invention of claim 16, as cited above, and further discloses “the at least one yellow LED comprises a plurality of yellow LEDs all operating at a wavelength λ2≈580 nm (Ramanujam Fig. 3 and Hsiao section 3.2).” Regarding claim 19, Ramanujam in view of Oki and Krivopisk and Hsiao discloses the invention of claim 16, as cited above, and further discloses “he at least one red LED comprises a plurality of red LEDs all operating at a wavelength λ1≈625 nm, and the at least one yellow LED comprises a plurality of yellow LEDs all operating at a wavelength λ2≈580 nm (Ramanujam Fig. 3 and Hsiao section 3.2).” Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new limitations are addressed by prior art reference Iwane. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3811. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-6pm. 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, James R Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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. /MICHAEL CHIANG/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875 /TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 08, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 20, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601463
DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR SURGICAL LIGHT SPOT SIZE ADJUSTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601462
OPTICAL SYSTEM FOR A LIGHTING DEVICE WITH A COLLIMATING LENS WITH A WELL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595893
PLANAR ILLUMINATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595894
LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12578079
COLOR-CHANGING LAMPSHADE AND LAMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+22.4%)
1y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 401 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