DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 13, 16-17, 19-20, 22-24, and 26-27 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 13 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended the claim be amended to say "a temperature". The same issue is present in claim 16, line 6-7.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected because they depend from claims rejected above as indefinite.
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) 1-3, 5, 11, 16-17, 19-20 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meindl (EP 3556318 A1 - CITED BY APPLICANT- previously cited) in view of Zhou (CN 208269017 U).
In regards to claim 1, Meindl teaches a system, comprising:
a surgical light head including a light head housing including one or more light emitting elements therein that are arranged to emit light toward a region of interest (Fig. 1 light head 3 including several illuminants for illuminating a surgical site 10);
a temperature sensor mounted to the light head housing and arranged such that it measures the temperature of a location in the region of interest (Fig.4 temperature sensor assembly 5 and temperature sensor 4, [0041]);
and a controller operatively coupled to the temperature sensor and configured to control temperature at the region of interest based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor ([0046] [0023] controls light intensity to control temperature at surgical site).
Meindl fails to teach a system wherein the controller is configured to control light output distribution of the one or more light emitting elements based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor by adjusting a lens of the light head housing.
Zhou teaches controller is configured to control light output distribution of the one or more light emitting elements ([0014] “user can electrically control light brightness of the LED lamp, and uses the hydraulic telescopic rod pushes the distance between the condensing lens and the lamp to adjust the brightness of the light provide convenience to users”, condensing lens inherently controls light distribution to control brightness). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light of Meindl to include the condensing lens and rod of Zhou in order to conveniently control the light distribution and brightness of the light when the temperature of the region of interest is too high in addition to adjusting the light intensity that Meindl performs.
In regards to claim 2, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the temperature sensor is an infrared thermometer (Meindl [0044]).
In regards to claim 3, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the temperature sensor is an infrared camera (Meindl [0044]).
In regards to claim 5, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the region of interest is a surgical site (Meindl abstract).
In regards to claim 11, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control intensity of the one or more light emitting elements based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (Meindl [0022]).
In regards to claim 16, Meindl teaches a system comprising:
a medical device suspension system (Fig. 1 suspension system 2);
a surgical light head mounted to the medical device suspension system and comprising a light head housing including one or more light emitting elements therein that are arranged to emit light toward to a surgical site (Fig. 1 light head 3 including several illuminants for illuminating a surgical site 10);
a temperature sensor external to the light head and configured to measure the temperature of a location in the surgical site (Fig.4 temperature sensor assembly 5 and temperature sensor 4, [0041]);
and a controller operatively coupled to the temperature sensor and configured to control temperature at the region of interest based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor ([0046] [0023] controls light intensity to control temperature at surgical site).
Meindl fails to teach a system wherein the controller is configured to control light output distribution of the one or more light emitting elements based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor by adjusting a lens of the light head housing. Zhou teaches controller is configured to control light output distribution of the one or more light emitting elements ([0014] “user can electrically control light brightness of the LED lamp, and uses the hydraulic telescopic rod pushes the distance between the condensing lens and the lamp to adjust the brightness of the light provide convenience to users”, condensing lens inherently controls light distribution to control brightness). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light of Meindl to include the condensing lens and rod of Zhou in order to conveniently control the light distribution and brightness of the light when the temperature of the region of interest is too high in addition to adjusting the light intensity that Meindl performs.
In regards to claim 17, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the temperature sensor is one of an infrared thermometer or an infrared camera (Meindl [0044]).
In regards to claim 19, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the temperature sensor is mounted to the medical device suspension system (Meindl [0041] sensor can also be attached to the suspension system).
In regards to claim 20, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the temperature sensor is not mounted to the medical device suspension system (Meindl Fig. 1 temperature sensor assembly 5 and temperature sensor 4 mounted to light head 3).
In regards to claim 27, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to control intensity of the one or more light emitting elements based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (Meindl [0022]).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meindl (EP 3556318 A1 - CITED BY APPLICANT- previously cited) in view of Zhou (CN 208269017 U) as applied to claim 1, in view of Sanders (US 10650988 B2).
In regards to claim 4, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the temperature sensor is mounted to the light head housing (Meindl Fig.4 temperature sensor 4). Meindl fails to teach a handle mounted to the light head housing, wherein the temperature sensor is within the handle. Sanders teaches a light head with a detachable handle in the middle for positioning the light, the handle comprising a sensor (Col 1 Lines 61-63,Col 7 Lines 1-5 “For example, it is contemplated that the detachable handle of the present invention may be adapted to incorporate additional components that are not described above, including, but not limited to, a laser, a distance sensor, etc”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature sensor assembly of modified Meindl to be a detachable sterilizable handle like the handle of Sanders. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing an interface for the surgeon to position the light that can be sterilized after use.
In regards to claim 13, modified Meindl teaches a surgical lighting system, comprising:
a light head housing including one or more light emitting elements therein that are arranged to emit light toward a surgical site (Meindl Fig. 1 light head 3 including several illuminants for illuminating a surgical site 10, Abstract);
and a temperature sensor mounted to the light head and arranged such that it measures the temperature of the surgical site (Meindl Fig.4 temperature sensor assembly 5 and temperature sensor 4),
wherein the temperature sensor is one of an infrared thermometer or an infrared camera (Meindl [0044]).
Modified Meindl fails to teach a handle mounted to the light head housing, wherein the temperature sensor is within the handle. Sanders teaches a light head with a detachable handle in the middle for positioning the light, the handle comprising a sensor (Col 1 Lines 61-63,Col 7 Lines 1-5 “For example, it is contemplated that the detachable handle of the present invention may be adapted to incorporate additional components that are not described above, including, but not limited to, a laser, a distance sensor, etc”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature sensor assembly of modified Meindl to be a detachable sterilizable handle like the handle of Sanders. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing an interface for the surgeon to position the light that can be sterilized after use.
Claims 6, 10, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meindl (EP 3556318 A1 - CITED BY APPLICANT- previously cited) in view of Zhou (CN 208269017 U) as applied to claim 1, in view of Shelton (US 20220384019 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 6, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control environmental temperature based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Shelton teaches a controller configured to control environmental temperature based on biomarkers of a surgical patient ([0474]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Meindl so that the controller controls the room temperature in response to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating or cooling the operating room in response to a patient’s condition.
In regards to claim 10, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control a warming or cooling peripheral device based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Shelton teaches a controller configured to control environmental temperature based on biomarkers of a surgical patient ([0474]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls the room temperature in response to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating or cooling the operating room in response to a patient’s condition.
In regards to claim 22, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control environmental temperature based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Shelton teaches a controller configured to control environmental temperature based on biomarkers of a surgical patient ([0474]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls the room temperature in response to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating or cooling the operating room in response to a patient’s condition.
In regards to claim 23, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control a patient warming or cooling system based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Shelton teaches a controller configured to control environmental temperature based on biomarkers of a surgical patient ([0474] room temperature control can warm or cool a patient). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls the room temperature in response to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating or cooling the operating room in response to a patient’s condition.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meindl (EP 3556318 A1 - CITED BY APPLICANT- previously cited) in view of Zhou (CN 208269017 U) as applied to claim 1, in view of Shelton (US 20220384019 A1 – previously cited) in view of Brown (US 20220365499 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 7 modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control an HVAC system based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Shelton teaches a controller configured to control heating and/or cooling control systems associated with the operating room based on biomarkers of a surgical patient ([0474]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls the room temperature in response to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating or cooling the operating room in response to a patient’s condition.
Modified Meindl in view of Shelton fails to teach an HVAC system as the heating and/or cooling control systems associated with the operating room. Brown teaches an HVAC system controlled by a controller ([0005]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cooling system of modified Meindl in view of Shelton with the HVAC system taught by Brown. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known room cooling system for another to obtain predictable result of cooling a room in response to a patient’s condition.
Claims 8, 10, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meindl (EP 3556318 A1 - CITED BY APPLICANT- previously cited) in view of Zhou (CN 208269017 U) as applied to claim 1, in view of Shelton (US 20220384019 A1previously cited) in view of Deibel (US 20080173629 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 8, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control l a warming or cooling blanket based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Shelton teaches a controller configured to control heating and/or cooling control systems based on temperature of a patient of a surgical patient ([0038]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls the cooling/heating parameters according to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating or cooling the patient when patient’s temperature is too high or low.
Modified Meindl in view of Shelton fails to teach controlling a warming or cooling blanket. Deibel teaches an electric warming blanket for use during surgery ([0009]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Meindl in view of Shelton so that the controller controls a warming blanket in response to the patient’s temperature being too high or low like Deibel. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of preventing thermal burns when heating a patient during surgery ([0011]).
In regards to claim 10 modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control a warming or cooling peripheral device based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Shelton teaches a controller configured to control heating and/or cooling control systems based on temperature of a patient of a surgical patient ([0038]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls the cooling/heating parameters according to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating or cooling the patient when patient’s temperature is too high or low.
Modified Meindl in view of Shelton fails to teach controlling a warming or cooling blanket. Deibel teaches an electric warming blanket for use during surgery ([0009]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Meindl in view of Shelton so that the controller controls a warming blanket in response to the patient’s temperature being too high or low like Deibel. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of preventing thermal burns when heating a patient during surgery ([0011]).
In regards to claim 24 modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control l a warming or cooling blanket based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Shelton teaches a controller configured to control heating and/or cooling control systems based on temperature of a patient of a surgical patient ([0038]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls the cooling/heating parameters according to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating or cooling the patient when patient’s temperature is too high or low.
Modified Meindl in view of Shelton fails to teach controlling a warming or cooling blanket. Deibel teaches an electric warming blanket for use during surgery ([0009]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Meindl in view of Shelton so that the controller controls a warming blanket in response to the patient’s temperature being too high or low like Deibel. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of preventing thermal burns when heating a patient during surgery ([0011])
In regards to claim 26 modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control a warming or cooling peripheral device based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Shelton teaches a controller configured to control heating and/or cooling control systems based on temperature of a patient of a surgical patient ([0038]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls the cooling/heating parameters according to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating or cooling the patient when patient’s temperature is too high or low.
Modified Meindl in view of Shelton fails to teach controlling a warming or cooling blanket . Deibel teaches an electric warming blanket for use during surgery ([0009]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Meindl in view of Shelton so that the controller controls a warming blanket in response to the patient’s temperature being too high or low like Deibel. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of preventing thermal burns when heating a patient during surgery ([0011]).
Claims 9, 10 , 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meindl (EP 3556318 A1 - CITED BY APPLICANT- previously cited) in view of Zhou (CN 208269017 U)) as applied to claim 1 in view of Atallah (WO 2015092627 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 9, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control a warming or cooling underbody pad based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Atallah teaches a pad that is controlled based on patient temperature ([00013]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls a warming pad in response to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating a patient in response to them getting too cold.
In regards to claim 10, modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 1. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control a warming or cooling peripheral device based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Atallah teaches a pad that is controlled based on patient temperature ([00013]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls a warming pad in response to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating a patient in response to them getting too cold.
In regards to claim 24 modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control a warming or cooling underbody pad based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Atallah teaches a pad that is controlled based on patient temperature ([00013]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls a warming pad in response to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating a patient in response to them getting too cold.
In regards to claim 26 modified Meindl teaches the system of claim 16. Modified Meindl fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to control a warming or cooling peripheral device based at least in part on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor. Atallah teaches a pad that is controlled based on patient temperature ([00013]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Meindl so that the controller controls a warming pad in response to the detected temperature at the surgical site like the system of Shelton. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of heating a patient in response to them getting too cold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claims 13, 16-17, 19-20, 22-24, and 26-27 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 13 and 16 have not been amended to correct the antecedent basis issue with the term “the temperature”.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11, 16-17, 19-20, and 27 under Meindl have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Meindl in view of Zhou.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 and 13 under Meindl have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Meindl in view of Zhou in view of Sanders.
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 LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/LUCY EPPERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights