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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-6 & 8-20 are pending.
Claims 1-6 & 8-19 are rejected.
Claim 20 is withdrawn.
Claim 7 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 1, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the objection to Claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The objection to Claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 1, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 4-5, 10-11 & 15-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 4-5, 10-11 & 15-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 2-5, filed September 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of Claims 1-6 & 8-19 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18, Claim 18 recites the limitation “a continuous white light” on Line 2. It is unclear whether this “continuous white light” is the same as “continuous reflected white light” previously recited on Line 7 of Claim 12, or a separate, different continuous white light. For the purpose of examination “a continuous white light” is being interpreted as “the continuous reflected white light”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13 & 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bausewein et al. (hereinafter "Bausewein") (DE 102010042200 A1), as evidenced by Irion et al. (hereinafter "Irion") (US 2011/0235324).
Regarding Claim 1, Bausewein, as best understood, discloses a system (Fig. 1, 10; [0037]) to illuminate a first surgical site (a patient’s eye; [0014]), the system comprising:
a controller (Fig. 1, 28; [0037]) that determines a metamerically matched illumination ([0044]), the metamerically matched illumination including a first set of illuminants (Fig. 1, a white light of 12; [0037]) and a second set of illuminants (Fig. 1, a white light of 14; [0037]), the first set of illuminants being spectrally distinct from the second set of illuminants (Figs. 1 & 6, 96 of the white light of 12 is 5800 K and 98 of the white light of 14 is 4900 K; [0050]), that, when temporally sequenced and at least partially superimposed (see Fig. 9), visually appear as a continuous output white light (Figs. 1 & 6, the white light of 12 is 5800 K and the white light of 14 is 4900K —wherein Irion evidences that light is perceived by the human eye as pure white if the color temperature is between 4500 K and 6500 K; (Irion; [0019])— and thus the white light of 12 and the white light of 14 are visually indistinguishable when combined into composite white light; Bausewein; [0050]); and
an imaging device (an ophthalmic surgical scope; [0014] & [0037]) in communication with the controller that emits the metamerically matched illumination on the first surgical site ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 2, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 1. Bausewein further discloses wherein the first set of illuminants comprises a first red light spectra, a first green light spectra, and a first blue light spectra (Figs. 1, the white light of 12 is white light and thus comprises red, green and blue spectra; [0046]).
Regarding Claim 4, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 2. Bausewein further discloses a processor (Fig. 1, 26; [0044]); and
a memory storing instructions thereon (Fig. 1, 66; [0044]) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine a first amplitude of the first red light spectra, a first amplitude of the first green light spectra, and a first amplitude of the first blue light spectra ([0044]) to generate a first white light (Fig. 1, the white light of 12; [0037]) that is comprised by the continuous output white light ([0050]).
Regarding Claim 5, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 4. Bausewein further discloses a light source (Fig. 1, 12; [0037]), the light source designed to:
receive the first amplitudes from the processor ([0056]); and
generate, based on the first amplitudes, the first white light ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 6, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 1. Bausewein further discloses a light guide (Fig. 1, 42; [0041]), the light guide configured to guide the continuous output white light from a light source to the imaging device ([0041]).
Regarding Claim 8, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 2. Bausewein further discloses wherein the second set of illuminants comprises a second red light spectra, a second green light spectra, and a second blue light spectra (Figs. 1, the white light of 14 is white light and thus comprises red, green and blue spectra; [0046]), and wherein the second red light spectra, the second green light spectra, and the second blue light spectra are, respectively, spectrally distinct from the first red light spectra, the first green light spectra, and the first blue light spectra (Fig. 1, the white light of 12 is 5800 K and the white light of 14 is 4900 K; [0050]).
Regarding Claim 9, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 8. Bausewein further discloses a processor (Fig. 1, 26; [0044]); and
a memory storing instructions thereon (Fig. 1, 66; [0044]) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine a second amplitude of the second red light spectra, a second amplitude of the second green light spectra, and a second amplitude of the second blue light spectra ([0044]) to generate a second white light (Fig. 1, the white light of 14; [0037]) that is comprised by the continuous output white light ([0050]).
Regarding Claim 10, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 9. Bausewein further discloses wherein a light source (Fig. 1, 14; [0037]) is further configured to:
receive the second amplitudes from the processor ([0056]); and
generate, based on the second amplitudes, the second white light ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 11, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 10. Bausewein further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
temporally sequence from the first set of illuminants to the second set of illuminants (see Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Bausewein, as best understood, discloses a system (Fig. 1, 10; [0037]) to illuminate a first surgical site(a patient’s eye; [0014]), the system comprising:
a controller (Fig. 1, 28; [0037]) that determines a metamerically matched reflectance ([0044]), the metamerically matched reflectance associated with a corresponding first set of illuminants (Fig. 1, a white light of 12; [0037]) and a second set of illuminants (Fig. 1, a white light of 14; [0037]), the first set of illuminants being spectrally distinct from the second set of illuminants (Figs. 1 & 6, 96 of the white light of 12 is 5800 K and 98 of the white light of 14 is 4900 K; [0050]), that, when the first set of illuminants and the second set of illuminants are temporally sequenced, at least partially superimposed, and shone on the first surgical site (see Fig. 9), reflectively appear as a continuous reflected white light (Figs. 1 & 6, the white light of 12 is 5800 K and the white light of 14 is 4900K —wherein Irion evidences that light is perceived by the human eye as pure white if the color temperature is between 4500 K and 6500 K; (Irion; [0019])— and thus the white light of 12 and the white light of 14 are visually indistinguishable when combined into composite white light; Bausewein; [0050]); and
an imaging device (an ophthalmic surgical scope; [0014] & [0037]) in communication with the controller that emits the first set of illuminants and the second set of illuminants on the first surgical site ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 13, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 12. Bausewein further discloses wherein the first set of illuminants comprises a first red light spectra, a first green light spectra, and a first blue light spectra (Figs. 1, the white light of 12 is white light and thus comprises red, green and blue spectra; [0046]).
Regarding Claim 15, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 13. Bausewein further discloses a processor (Fig. 1, 26; [0044]); and
a memory storing instructions thereon (Fig. 1, 66; [0044]) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine a first amplitude of the first red light spectra, a first amplitude of the first green light spectra, and a first amplitude of the first blue light spectra ([0044]) to generate the first set of illuminants and the second set of illuminants ([0050]).
Regarding Claim 16, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 15. Bausewein further discloses wherein the system further comprises:
a light source (Fig. 1, an LED array comprising 12, 14 and 16; [0037]), the light source designed to:
receive the first amplitudes from the processor ([0056]); and
generate, based on the first amplitudes, the first set of illuminants and the second set of illuminants ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 17, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 12. Bausewein further discloses a light guide (Fig. 1, 42; [0041]), the light guide configured to guide the first set of illuminants and the second set of illuminants from a light source to the imaging device ([0041]).
Regarding Claim 18, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 12. Bausewein further discloses wherein the first set of illuminants and the second set of illuminants appear as a continuous white light to a user (Figs. 1 & 6, the white light of 12 is 5800 K and the white light of 14 is 4900K —wherein Irion evidences that light is perceived by a human eye as pure white if the color temperature is between 4500 K and 6500 K; (Irion; [0019])— and thus the white light of 12 and the white light of 14 are visually indistinguishable when combined into composite white light; Bausewein; [0050]).
Regarding Claim 19, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 13. Bausewein further discloses wherein the second set of illuminants comprises a second red light spectra, a second green light spectra, and a second blue light spectra (Figs. 1, the white light of 14 is white light and thus comprises red, green and blue spectra; [0046]), and wherein the second red light spectra, the second green light spectra, and the second blue light spectra are, respectively, spectrally distinct from the first red light spectra, the first green light spectra, and the first blue light spectra (Fig. 1, the white light of 12 is 5800 K and the white light of 14 is 4900 K; [0050]).
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.
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.
Claims 3 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausewein et al. (hereinafter "Bausewein") (DE 102010042200 A1)in view of Irion et al. (hereinafter "Irion") (US 2011/0235324).
Regarding Claims 3 & 14, Bausewein discloses the system of Claim 1 and the system of Claim 12, respectively. Bausewein further discloses wherein the system is used for medical observation devices such as a surgical scope (i.e., an endoscope). Bausewein fails to explicitly disclose a display device to display the illuminated first surgical site.
However, Irion teaches a surgical scope system (Fig. 1, 10; [0086]) to illuminate a first surgical site (Fig. 1, 12; [0086]), the system comprising:
an illumination system (Fig. 1, 60; [0088]) configured to output white light ([0103]);
an imaging device (Fig. 1, 20; [0086]) in communication with the illumination system ([0088]) that emits the white light on the first surgical site ([0089]); and
a display device (display; [0022]) configured to display the illuminated first surgical site ([0022]).
The advantage of the display device is to record and display the illuminated surgical site (Irion; [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical system as disclosed by Bausewein, to include the display device taught by Irion, to record and display the illuminated surgical site (Irion; [0022]).
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 STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights