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 .
1. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are presented for examination and claim 5 is cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1, the amended limitations “determine a value on a basis of an energy input of the at least one surgical luminaire into the surgical field”, and claim 7, “a value on a basis of a total power parameter of an exposure of the at least two surgical luminaires into the surgical field”, However, newly found prior art, Orringer et al.(US 20170215717 A1) disclose, for example, in Abstract, [0006], [0008], [0019], a power control circuit for varying electrical power delivered to a light source of the light assembly, a power source in electrical communication with the light assembly, the motor assembly, and the wireless transceiver, and a sterilizable wireless controller configured to transmit instructions to the wireless transceiver, In addition, Rus et al. (US 20030142204 A1) discloses, for example, in Abstract, [0014], [0032], [0035], The control apparatus receives the lighthead status signal and selects a set of control algorithms from among a group of algorithms based on the lighthead status signal for controlling the lighthead. The lighthead status signal includes information regarding a size of the lighthead, an intensity of light from the bulb, a condition of the bulb, a level of current applied to the bulb, a level of current applied to the bulb, a level of voltage applied to the bulb, an internal temperature of the lighthead, lamp power. The controller measures lamp voltage and current and sets a duty cycle for a pulse width modulation (PWM) circuit. This amendment was added in response to the final rejection made by the Office. As a result, the previous rejection has been withdrawn and a new rejection has been made in its place, Orringer et al.(US 20170215717 A1) in view of Rus et al. (US 20030142204 A1). See the rejection below.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 2, objected to because of the following informalities: “a function” should be “the function since it introduces in claim 1.
Applicant use “and/or “ throughout the claim, however, to avoid ambiguity, use “or ” for exclusive choice, or “and” for inclusive choice. During prosecution, the Office construes claims broadly to establish a clear record, for examination purpose examiner use the “or”. Applicant use Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1-20 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 1, 4, 7 and 18, the term “a value” is unclear what value is determined, however, for examination purpose the claims 1 and 4 are interpreted as “determine an energy input value of the at least one surgical luminaire into the surgical filed”, claims 7 and 18, “determine total power parameter value of a of an exposure of the at least two surgical luminaires into the surgical field” clarification requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the light field diameter" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the total power parameter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). claims must clearly define the metes and bounds of the invention so that a person of ordinary skill in the art understands what is covered.
As per claims 2-4, 6, 8-21, these claims are at least rejected for their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on the rejected claims 1 and 7. They are therefore rejected as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-110, 12, 14-15, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, recite “determine a value on basis of an energy input….” , and “determine the energy input function of the light field diameter”, the limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process ( concept performance in the human mind, observations, evaluations, judgments, but for the recitation of generic computer components), In addition, Note that, in this example, “as a function of the light field diameter”, step is determined to recite a mathematical concept because the claim recites a “function” is a mathematical concept ( Mathematical calculations Mental processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), but for the recitation of generic computer components (monitoring unit), then it falls then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “mathematical concept “ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element-using a monitoring unit to perform “determine a value on basis of an energy input….” , and “determine the energy input function of the light field diameter” steps. The monitoring unit in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “determine a value on basis of an energy input….” , and “determine the energy input function of the light field diameter”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, claim the recite and monitor if the energy input into the surgical field is exceeding the limit and display or emit an acoustic or optical warning the result is insignificant post extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, providing details on the (i.e., determining... and displaying) amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h), example (vi)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of using a monitoring unit to perform “determine” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the monitor and display the result data amounts to no more than insignificant post-activity. "Receiving or transmitting data (displaying) over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL! Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The same evaluation is applied for claims 7, 14 and 21, since the limitations are similar, therefore claim 7, 14 and 21 are not patent eligible.
Claims 8-10, 12, 18 and 19, recite “determine…” which can perform in the human mind observations, evaluations, judgments. The additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): the claims are directed to mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 6, recite “display ….” which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim dose not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
7. 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.
7.1 Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-11, 14, 17-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orringer et al. (US 20170215717 A1) in view of Rus (US 20030142204 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Orringer discloses a system for monitoring a surgical luminaire assembly (Abstract, a light source of the light assembly), comprising:
at least one surgical luminaire (a surgical headlight 100 ) with a monitoring unit (controller) comprising a microcontroller and software stored on a non-volatile memory which runs on the microcontroller ([0019]- [0024], [0034], [0039], The surgical headlight 100 include control circuits 105 (monitoring unit) and integrated with a processor 109 and memory),
wherein the monitoring unit microcontroller and software ([0024], processor 109 is configured to receive instructions for operation of the surgical headlight 100 from the controller processor 507 of the wireless controller 500) are configured to determine a value on a basis of an energy input of the at least one surgical luminaire into the surgical field ([0019], [0023], [0045], [0048], a light source power control circuit 107 for increasing or decreasing (value) electrical power delivered (energy input) to a light source 301 of the light assembly 300 from a power source 400 in electrical communication (e.g., via a power cord 401) with the surgical headlight 100, thereby increasing or decreasing light output of the light source 301),
wherein the light field diameter of the at least one surgical luminaire is variable the (Abstract, [0004], [0019], [0028], [0045], an optical assembly including an adjustable diameter aperture in optical communication with the light source; adjust an orientation and an aperture diameter of a light assembly. The instructions causing the electronic controller to one or more of actuate at least one motor of the motor assembly to alter an orientation of the light assembly, adjust a diameter of an aperture of the light assembly, adjust a spacing between one or more condensing lenses and an objective lens, or operate the power control circuit to increase or decrease electrical power delivered to the light source), and
wherein the monitoring unit is configured to determine the energy input as a function of the light field diameter (Abstract, [0045], a spot control 503c for instructing the motor assembly 200 to vary the aperture diameter to increase or decrease the size of the light beam, and a brightness control 503d for instructing the power control circuit 105 to vary the electrical power delivered to the light source 301 to increase or decrease light output (brightness) of the light source 3), and
display or emit an acoustic or optical warning/or automatically limit the energy input or reduce an illuminance when the limit value is exceeded (abstract, [0036], an indicator or display can be provided to indicate operational status).
However, Orringer does not specifically disclose the monitoring unit is configured to monitor whether the value determined on the basis of the energy input into the surgical field for exceeds a limit value.
Rus discloses wherein the monitoring unit is configured to monitor whether the value determined on the basis of the energy input into the surgical field for exceeds a limit value (Fig. 6, [0019], [0042]-[0044], [0048], the display area 170 includes a "select light" indicia or label area, an "intensity" area, an "ambient light ON/OFF" area, a "camera" area, and a "system" area. An up arrow 172 and a down arrow 174 are provided among the other input buttons to select a lighthead from among the group. When the lamp is at a maximum intensity level, all seven segments are displayed).
Orringer and Rus are analogous art. They relate to surgical light monitoring and controlling. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical light system, taught by Rus, incorporated with A surgical headlight system, taught by Orringer, in order to reduce light intensity with potential adverse effects on the surgical procedure or increase light intensity causing a reduced lamp life and a plug and play control interface that gives a user access to multiple devices at one station, gives the surgeon control of more devices within the sterile field, and makes control of the system simpler and more intuitive).
Regarding claim 2, Orringer discloses the monitoring unit determines the energy input as a function of a light field diameter and an illuminance of the at least one surgical luminaire wherein the monitoring unit determines at least one of the light field diameters and the illuminance on the basis of the actuation of the light sources. (Abstract, [0004]-[0008], [0028], controller to one or more of actuate at least one motor of the motor assembly to alter an orientation of the light assembly, adjust a diameter of an aperture of the light assembly, and operate the power control circuit to increase or decrease electrical power delivered to the light source; operate the power control circuit to increase or decrease electrical power delivered to the light source to vary a light output of the light source. adjust the diameter of the aperture 306 to control the amount of light).
Regarding claim 4, Rus discloses one or more of the monitoring units displays the energy input into the surgical field and the value determined on the basis of the energy input into the surgical field (Abstract, [0014], [0019],[0042], [0044],Fig. 6-7, A human-readable display device (160) is provided for displaying information relating to the lighthead status sign. When the lamp is at a maximum intensity level, all seven segments are displayed. As the user increases lamp intensity, successive segments are displayed from left to right with all preceding segments remaining on. The controller measures lamp voltage and current and sets a duty cycle for a pulse width modulation (PWM) circuit. This effectively gives consistent light by compensating for most all sources of variation, and intensity display with a predefined power levels).
Regarding claim 6, Rus discloses one or more of a monitoring and control function of the monitoring unit is configure to be switched on and off ([0015], control allows all lightheads in the system to be turned on/off from the switch bezel input on any light in the system), and/or wherein displayed and/or a response taken when the limit value is exceeded is selectable.
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Orringer discloses a system for monitoring a surgical luminaire assembly (Abstract, a light source of the light assembly), comprising surgical luminaires, with a monitoring unit comprising: a microcontroller and software stored on a non-volatile memory which runs on the microcontroller ([0019]- [0024], [0034], [0039], The surgical headlight 100 include control circuits 105 (monitoring unit) and integrated with a processor 109 and memory) wherein the microcontroller and software are configured to: determine a value on a basis of a total power parameter of an exposure of the at least two surgical luminaires into the surgical field, wherein the total power parameter is a joint radiant power of the surgical luminaires per unit area ([0006], [0008], [0019], [0023],[0037, operating a power control circuit mounted to the headband to increase or decrease electrical power delivered to a light source of the light assembly to vary a light output of the light source, instructing the power control circuit 105 to vary the electrical power delivered to the light source 301 to increase or decrease light output (brightness) of the light source 301), and
display or emit an acoustic or optical warning
However, Orringer does not specifically disclose two surgical luminaires per unit area and monitoring unit is configured to monitor whether the value determined on the basis of the total power parameter exceeds a limit value.
Rus discloses two surgical luminaires per unit area (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0029], lighting control apparatus 30 with the first and second set of lighting devices 12, 18 the monitoring unit is configured to monitor whether the value determined on the basis of the energy input into the surgical field for exceeds a limit value (Fig. 6, [0019], [0042]-[0044], [0048], the display area 170 includes a "select light" indicia or label area, an "intensity" area, an "ambient light ON/OFF" area, a "camera" area, and a "system" area. An up arrow 172 and a down arrow 174 are provided among the other input buttons to select a lighthead from among the group. When the lamp is at a maximum intensity level, all seven segments are displayed).
Orringer and Rus are analogous art. They relate to surgical light monitoring and controlling. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical light system, taught by Rus, incorporated with A surgical headlight system, taught by Orringer, in order to reduce light intensity with potential adverse effects on the surgical procedure or increase light intensity causing a reduced lamp life and a plug and play control interface that gives a user access to multiple devices at one station, gives the surgeon control of more devices within the sterile field, and makes control of the system simpler and more intuitive).
Regarding claim 8, Rus discloses the surgical luminaires each comprise a plurality of light sources ([0029]-[0030], Fig. 1, Fig. 2, the Lighting device has a plurality of the surgical lightheads 40-44 are carried on a corresponding suspension (hand) system 40'-44'), wherein the monitoring unit determines the total power parameter on the basis of the actuation of the light sources ([0032], [0032] The lightheads 40-44 and 50 each respectively include an electronics module 60-66 for executing programs in accordance with predetermined algorithms. Each of the lightheads in the subject system are adapted to communicate with the lighting control apparatus 30 for controlling various lighting functions and to provide for plug and play capability).
Regarding claim 9, Rus discloses the monitoring unit determines the total power parameter at least in one operating mode for a configuration in which one or more of the light fields overlap completely the light filed, and/or wherein the monitoring unit determines one or more of the total power parameter at least in one operating mode on the basis of information regarding the actual orientation, and/or position of the at least two surgical luminaires ([0030], appropriate power and communication cables which will be described below and further enable movement of the lightheads 40-44 and of the task light 46 into selected positions relative to the operating room application) and/or regarding the actual overlap of the light fields of the at least two surgical luminaires.
Regarding claim 10, Rus discloses the monitoring unit determines at least one of the energy -input and the total power parameter at least in one operating mode for configuration in which the at least one surgical luminaire has a predetermined distance from the surgical field (Abstract, A control apparatus (32, 34) is in operative communication with the processor (120). The control apparatus receives the lighthead status signal and selects a set of control algorithms from among a group of algorithms based on the lighthead status signal for controlling the lighthead. The lighthead status signal includes information regarding a size of the lighthead, an intensity of light from the bulb, a condition of the bulb, a level of current applied to the bulb, a level of current applied to the bulb, a level of voltage applied to the bulb, an internal temperature of the lighthead, and the presence of one or more of a video camera, a surgical task light, and a controllable ambient light).
Regarding claim 11, Rus discloses the at least one surgical luminaire (lighting system 10) comprises a luminaire body and a handle which is arranged on the luminaire body, for orienting the luminaire body ([0029]-[0030], Fig. 1, Fig. 2, the Lighting device has a plurality of the surgical lightheads 40-44 are carried on a corresponding suspension (hand) system 40'-44').
Regarding claim 17, Rus discloses the surgical luminaire comprises a plurality of light sources Fig. 1, Fig. 2, the surgical lighting system 10 includes first and second set of lighting devices with a plurality of surgical lightheads 40-44).
Regarding claim 18, Ruse discloses the value is determine on the basis of a temperature rise of the surgical field (Abstract, the control apparatus receives the lighthead status signal and selects a set of control algorithms from among a group of algorithms based on the lighthead status signal for controlling the lighthead, the lighthead status signal includes an internal temperature).
7.2 Claim(s) 3, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orringer (US 20170215717 A1) in view of Rus et al. (US 20030142204 A1) further in view of Hartl et al. (US 20170318644 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Orringer in view of Rus discloses the limitation of claim 1, but fail to disclose the limitations of claim 3 and 6. However, Hartl discloses as follow:
Regarding claims 3 and 16 Hartl discloses the larger the proportion of the emitted intensity of the illuminants 3 generating the determined light field diameters L.sub.1 and L.sub.2 of an overall performance is, the closer is the resulting light field diameter to this determined light field diameter. When the illuminants 3 are operated with a performance geared to each other, on the one hand, the resulting light field diameter is adjustable and, on the other hand, the illumination, i.e. the brightness, in the surgical field is adjustable, but Orringer, Rus and Hartl fail to disclose surgical luminaire is variable by at least 25 mm, a light field diameter of at least 100 mm, a light field diameter range between 200 mm and 300 mm, an illuminance variable by at least 20 kLux or 40kLux and range between 80 kLux and 120 kLux. However, such variable and rang is an obvious designer chooses to adjust a specific parameters based on the distance of the surgical field in order to avoid desiccation of the wound and increased performance of the operation.
Regarding claim 20, Orringer in view of Rus discloses the limitation of claims 1 and 10, but fail to disclose the limitations of claim 20. However, Hartl discloses as follow:
Regarding claim 20, Hartl discloses the handle is arranged within a light- emitting region of the luminaire body and a main axis of the handle coincides with an optical main axis of the surgical luminaire,
Hartl, Orringer and Rus are analogous art. They relate to surgical lighting monitoring and controlling. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify surgical lamp for illuminating a surgical field, taught by Jesurun, incorporated with teaching of Orringer and Rus, as state above, in order to operate with a performance geared to each other and the resulting light field diameter is adjustable and, on the other hand, the illumination, i.e. the brightness, in the surgical field is adjustable.
7.3 Claim(s) 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orringer (US 20170215717 A1) in view of Rus et al. (US 20030142204 A1) further in view of Jesurun et al. (US 20030210559 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15, the combination of Orringer and Rus disclose the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 14, but fail disclose the limitations of claims 12-13 and 15. However, Jesurun discloses the limitations of claims 12-13 and 15 as follow:
Regarding claim 12, Jesurun discloses the surgical luminaire assembly comprises at least two surgical luminaires (lighthead 14 and 16), each comprising a stand-alone monitoring unit (0043], independently controlling each of the lightheads and other components of the system 10) and an interface for communicating with each other ([0043], a master control unit 90 is in communication with each of the lightheads 14, 16), wherein the total power parameter is determined by the monitoring units on the basis of the information transmitted via the interface, or wherein a common monitoring unit is provided ([0043], [0044], FIG. 8, communication cables 110, 112 extend between the master control 90 and the controller 70 in each lighthead for carrying signals therebetween. For example, when the controller 70 of one lighthead 14 receives a signal from the switch 76 to switch off the bulb 38 and also that of the other lighthead 16, the controller sends a signal to the master control unit 90, which in turn signals the controller of the lighthead 16 to switch off the bulb of that lighthead. The master control unit 90 also signals the ambient light 80 to switch on. These operations are carried out simultaneously, or substantially so, such that the operating room is not plunged in darkness for any significant length of time).
Regarding claim 13, Jesurnu discloses the surgical luminaire assembly comprises at least two surgical luminaires, wherein at least one parameter of the at least two surgical luminaires is synchronously adjustable ([0007], [0010], [0026], [0036], [0043], FIG. 1, switching one of the lightheads 14 to off by the selectable lengthy time depression also switches off the other lighthead 16), in particular the light field diameter and/or the illuminance and/or the color setting and/or the switching on and off ([0026], to adjust the focus of the light on the patient, e.g., by decreasing or increasing the diameter of the light pattern on the patient).
Regarding claim 15, Jesurnu discloses the surgical luminaire assembly comprises a support system via which the one or more luminaires can be arranged above an operating table so as to be adjustable in their position and orientation (Fig. 1, [0007], [0010], [0026], Abstract, [0028], a surgeon grasps a handle 36 of the handle assembly 34 and pulls the lighthead to the desired position. A handle (36) extends below the bezel and is rotatable relative thereto. The handle 36 is rotatable, relative to the bezel 50, about an axis X through the lighthead, to adjust the focus of the lamp 38).
Jesurun, Orringer and Rus are analogous art. They relate to surgical lighting monitoring and controlling. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a lighting system, taught by Jesurun, incorporated with teaching of Orringer and Rus, as state above, in order to adjusts an intensity of light emitted by the light source.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 19 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.
Citation Pertinent prior art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jorgensen (EP 2312390 A1) discloses a current meter 15 and/or light power meter 14 and/or voltage meter 13 is connected to the digital regulator 11 for feedback readings and control of the power delivered to LED 12; the threshold on the current/power characteristics where the light source starts emitting light depends on several parameters such as batch number and temperature.
Luntsford (US 5093769 A) discloses change the diameter of the light beams that are directed to the surgical site. a surgeon may desire a high intensity, wide diameter light beam for illuminating the abdomen of a patient while an incision is being made. After the incision, the surgeon may wish the beam diameter narrowed and the intensity increased to properly illuminate a particular organ within the patient's abdomen, see column 6, lines 25-33.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights