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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 10, 2026 has been entered.
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Claim 20 is withdrawn.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 Amendment
The following is a quotation of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) with added emphasis on the relevant text:
All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of "currently amended" and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in the Final rejection mailed January 16, 2026. Applicant filed a Response After Final on March 12, 2026 which included amendments to Claim 18 to overcome the 112(b) rejection. This response, however, was not entered and an advisory action was mailed on March 26, 2026 (see Amendment After Final initialed by the examiner & Advisory Action, respectively). As such, in this current claim set, mailed April 10, 2026, the status indicator of Claim 18 is incorrect and should have read “Currently Amended” and the word “output” should have be underlined to indicated added text.
Given this was simply a drafting error, the current claim set has been entered and no action is required on the part of the Applicant with the above provided solely for the clarity of the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed April 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-14, filed April 10, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 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.
Claims 6, 10-11 & 17 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 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “a light source” on Lines 2-3. There is ambiguous antecedent basis of this limitation in the claims and it is unclear whether this “light source” is the same as the “light source” previously recited on Lines 1-2 of Claim 2, or a separate, different light source. For the purpose of examination “a light source” is being interpreted as “the light source”.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites the limitation “the second amplitude” on Line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis of this limitation in the claims and it is unclear whether “the second amplitude” is the same the “second amplitude of the second red light spectra” previously recited on Line 5 of Claim 9, the “second amplitude of the second green light spectra” previously recited on Lines 5-6 of Claim 9, the “second amplitude of the second blue light spectra” previously recited on Line 6 of Claim 9, or a separate, different second amplitude. For the purpose of examination, “the second amplitude” is being interpreted as “the second amplitudes”.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites the limitation “a light source” on Line 3. There is ambiguous antecedent basis of this limitation in the claims and it is unclear whether this “light source” is the same as the “light source” previously recited on Lines 1 of Claim 13, or a separate, different light source. For the purpose of examination “a light source” is being interpreted as “the light source”.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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 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, 12 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausewein et al. (hereinafter "Bausewein") (DE 102010042200 A1) in view of O'Brien (U.S. 4,654,794) and 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]), the controller configured to determine 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]).
Bausewein, as best understood, fails to explicitly disclose a metamerism algorithm.
However, O’Brien teaches a system (Col. 2, Lines 26-28) to illuminate a first surgical site (Fig. 1, 1; Col. 2, Lines 32-35), the system comprising:
a controller (Fig. 1, 12; Col. 2, Lines 65-68) including a metamerism algorithm (Fig. 3, a main program wherein the main program includes 91; Col. 3, Lines 20-23 & Col. 4, Lines 56-59), the controller configured to determine metameric matching (Col. 3, Lines 28-40).
The advantage of the metameric algorithm is to verify color (i.e., spectrum) matching (O'Brien; Col. 5, Lines 27-39).
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 controller as disclosed by Bausewein, to include the metameric algorithm taught by O'Brien, to verify color (i.e., spectrum) matching (O'Brien; Col. 5, Lines 27-39).
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]), the controller configured to determine 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]).
Bausewein, as best understood, fails to explicitly disclose a metamerism algorithm.
However, O’Brien teaches a system (Col. 2, Lines 26-28) to illuminate a first surgical site (Fig. 1, 1; Col. 2, Lines 32-35), the system comprising:
a controller (Fig. 1, 12; Col. 2, Lines 65-68) including a metamerism algorithm (Fig. 3, a main program wherein the main program includes 91; Col. 3, Lines 20-23 & Col. 4, Lines 56-59), the controller configured to determine metameric matching (Col. 3, Lines 28-40).
The advantage of the metameric algorithm is to verify color (i.e., spectrum) matching (O'Brien; Col. 5, Lines 27-39).
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 controller as disclosed by Bausewein, to include the metameric algorithm taught by O'Brien, to verify color (i.e., spectrum) matching (O'Brien; Col. 5, Lines 27-39).
Regarding Claim 18, Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien, teaches the system of Claim 12. Bausewein further discloses wherein the first set of illuminants and the second set of illuminants appear as a continuous output 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]).
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-17 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausewein et al. (hereinafter "Bausewein") (DE 102010042200 A1) in view of O'Brien (U.S. 4,654,794) and as evidenced by Irion et al. (hereinafter "Irion") (US 2011/0235324) as applied to Claims 1 & 12 above, and further in view of Shen (US 2024/0245288).
Regarding Claim 2, Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien, discloses the system of Claim 1. Bausewein further discloses wherein the imaging device comprises a light source (Fig. 1, an LED array comprising 12, 14 and 16; [0037]), and the light source comprises a plurality of light-emitting elements ([0037]), and wherein the first set of illuminants comprises a first red light spectra, a first green light spectra, and a first blue light spectra emitted by a first light-emitting element (Figs. 1, the white light of 12 is white light and thus comprises red, green and blue spectra, wherein 12 is a phosphor-type white LED; [0045] & [0046]).
Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first red light spectra is emitted by a first light-emitting element, the first green light spectra is emitted by a second light-emitting element, and the first blue light spectra is emitted by a third light-emitting element, and wherein each light-emitting element does not emit light of a wavelength emitted by the other two light emitting elements.
However, Shen teaches a system ([0063]) to illuminate a surgical site ([0004]), the system comprising:
an imaging device (Fig. 4, 400; [0063]) that emits the set of illuminants (white light; [0074]); and
wherein the imaging device comprises a light source (Fig. 4, 410; [0063]), and the light source comprises a plurality of light-emitting elements ([0063]), and wherein the set of illuminants comprises a first red light spectra (red; [0074]) emitted by a first light-emitting element (Fig. 4, 411-1; [0074]), a first green light spectra (green; [0074]) emitted by a second light-emitting element (Fig. 4, 411-2; [0074]), and a first blue light spectra (blue; [0074]) emitted by a third light-emitting element (Fig. 4, 411-3; [0074]), and wherein each light-emitting element does not emit light of a wavelength emitted by the other two light emitting elements ([0074]).
The advantage of the tricolored laser diodes is to increase transmission capacity and reduce heat production compared to phosphor-type LEDs (Shen; [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to replace the phosphor-type white LED as disclosed by Bausewein, as previously modified by O'Brien, with the tricolored laser diodes taught by Shen, to increase transmission capacity and reduce heat production compared to phosphor-type LEDs (Shen; [0074]).
Regarding Claim 4, Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches 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, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches the system of Claim 4. Bausewein further discloses wherein the light source is configured 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, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches the system of Claim 2. 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, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches 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 at least one of the second red light spectra, the second green light spectra, and the second blue light spectra are, respectively, spectrally distinct from the corresponding 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, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches 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, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches the system of Claim 9. Bausewein further discloses wherein the light source is further configured to receive the second amplitude from the processor ([0056]) and generate, based on the second amplitudes, the second white light ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 11, Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches 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 13, Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien, discloses the system of Claim 12. Bausewein further discloses wherein the imaging device comprises a light source (Fig. 1, an LED array comprising 12, 14 and 16; [0037]), and the light source comprises a plurality of light-emitting elements ([0037]), and wherein the first set of illuminants comprises a first red light spectra, a first green light spectra, and a first blue light spectra emitted by a first light-emitting element (Figs. 1, the white light of 12 is white light and thus comprises red, green and blue spectra, wherein 12 is a phosphor-type white LED; [0045] & [0046]).
Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first red light spectra is emitted by a first light-emitting element, the first green light spectra is emitted by a second light-emitting element, and the first blue light spectra is emitted by a third light-emitting element, and wherein each light-emitting element does not emit light of a wavelength emitted by the other two light emitting elements.
However, Shen teaches a system ([0063]) to illuminate a surgical site ([0004]), the system comprising:
an imaging device (Fig. 4, 400; [0063]) that emits the set of illuminants (white light; [0074]); and
wherein the imaging device comprises a light source (Fig. 4, 410; [0063]), and the light source comprises a plurality of light-emitting elements ([0063]), and wherein the set of illuminants comprises a first red light spectra (red; [0074]) emitted by a first light-emitting element (Fig. 4, 411-1; [0074]), a first green light spectra (green; [0074]) emitted by a second light-emitting element (Fig. 4, 411-2; [0074]), and a first blue light spectra (blue; [0074]) emitted by a third light-emitting element (Fig. 4, 411-3; [0074]), and wherein each light-emitting element does not emit light of a wavelength emitted by the other two light emitting elements ([0074]).
The advantage of the tricolored laser diodes is to increase transmission capacity and reduce heat production compared to phosphor-type LEDs (Shen; [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to replace the phosphor-type white LED as disclosed by Bausewein, as previously modified by O'Brien, with the tricolored laser diodes taught by Shen, to increase transmission capacity and reduce heat production compared to phosphor-type LEDs (Shen; [0074]).
Regarding Claim 15, Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches 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, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches the system of Claim 15. Bausewein further discloses wherein the light source is configured 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, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches the system of Claim 13. 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 19, Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien and Shen, teaches 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 at least one of the second red light spectra, the second green light spectra, and the second blue light spectra are, respectively, spectrally distinct from corresponding 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]).
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 O'Brien (U.S. 4,654,794) as applied to Claims 1 & 12 above, and further in view of Irion et al. (hereinafter "Irion") (US 2011/0235324).
Regarding Claims 3 & 14, Bausewein, as previously modified by O’Brien, teaches 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, as previously modified by O’Brien, 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, as previously modified by O’Brien, to include the display device taught by Irion, to record and display the illuminated surgical site (Irion; [0022]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights