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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim objections has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. 35 USC 112 Rejections have been partially withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Hayashi mentions voltage only once…Hayashi instead discloses using drive current control, not voltage control” (pg. 13-14 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Hayashi recites the scenario of a forward voltage that is lowered in order to lower the drive current value, where the drive current value rapidly decreases and the LED does not emit light ([0050]), this occurs in select scenarios (i.e., “depending on the type of the LED” [0050]). Further, Hayashi describe the use of voltage to impact light emission as known (i.e., “such a situation…in accordance with drive current control for the LEDs” [0050]). Hayashi teaches voltage can be changed to impact the drive current value, which impacts LED light emission ([0050]). Therefore, Hayashi does teach the use of voltage control for LEDs.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first viewing element” in claims 1 and 16 and 20, “imaging devices” in claims 4-5 and 17, and “a second viewing element” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 17 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.
The limitation “one or more imaging devices of the medical device” is unclear. It is unclear if this is the same or separate feature from the first viewing element (claimed in claim 16).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US 2021/0195081), in view of Hayashi (US 2024/0268651).
Regarding claim 1, Verma discloses a medical device system (endoscopic system [0016]) comprising: a control unit (non-transitory machine-readable media…[0014]; accessible by a machine…[0091]) configured to be operatively coupled to a medical device (endoscope [0014]), wherein the control unit comprises: one or more processors (processors…[0091]) that implement an algorithm (instructions…[0085]) to enhance images obtained by a first viewing element (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a camera, image sensor, etc. [0026] | endoscope…visualization element [0014]) of the medical device, wherein the one or more processors perform the steps of: receiving a first image from the first viewing element (107, figure 1); determining a current illumination value of the first image (109, figure 1); determining a first difference between the current illumination value and a target high illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a high or upper threshold value) if the current illumination value is greater than the target high illumination value (decision block 111, figure 1 would occur if the current illumination value is greater than the target high illumination value); determining a second difference between the current illumination value and a target low illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a low threshold value) if the current illumination value is less than the target low illumination value (decision block 111, figure 1 would occur if the current illumination value is less than the target low illumination value); generating a new illumination value (115, figure 1; [0035]), using at least one of the first difference and the second difference ([0036]-[0038]); and converting the new illumination value to for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device (121, figure 1). Verma is silent regarding converting the new illumination value to a first voltage value for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device.
Hayashi teaches a processor (200, figure 2) with a light source device (201, figure 2). The light source device includes a plurality of LEDs, where voltage can be changed to adjust the drive current value of the LED ([0050]). Changing the voltage and drive current value would also change the light emission of the LED ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to modify the system to convert the new illumination value to a voltage value for application to one or more illuminators as taught by Hayashi ([0050]). Doing so would adjust/change the light emission of the light source/LED ([0050]). The modified system would converting the new illumination value to a first voltage value (voltage is…[0050]; Hayashi) for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device (121, figure 1; Verma).
Regarding claim 2, Verma further discloses the target high illumination value and the target low illumination value together define a tolerance band around a target illumination value stored by the control unit (acceptable ranges of the user-defined image brightness…[0033]; Verma).
Regarding claim 3, Verma further discloses the one or more processors further perform the steps of: determining if the current illumination value is below a first threshold illumination value (207, figure 2; Verma); and if the current illumination value is below the first threshold illumination value (209, figure 2), using a scaling factor to generate the new illumination value (target light source illumination level…[0046] | [0036]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 4, Verma and Hayashi further disclose the one or more processors further perform the steps of: determining if the new illumination value is greater than a maximum illumination value (207, figure 2; Verma | patient safety…threshold [0047]); and if the new illumination value is greater than the maximum illumination value (see “YES”, figure 2), converting the maximum illumination value to a second voltage value (voltage is…[0050]; Hayashi) for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device (maintain the light source illuminance level [0049]; Verma), and increasing a gain of at least one imaging device of one or more imaging devices (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a camera, image sensor, etc. [0026] | endoscope…visualization element [0014]; increasing the gain…[0049]) of the medical device, wherein the one or more imaging devices include the first viewing element (endoscope…visualization element [0014]).
Regarding claim 5, Verma further discloses the one or more processors further perform the steps of: determining if the new illumination value is lower than the current illumination value (115, figure 1; Verma); and if the new illumination value is lower than the current illumination value, decreasing a gain of at least one imaging device of one or more imaging devices (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a camera, image sensor, etc. [0026] | endoscope…visualization element [0014]) of the medical device (to reduce illumination value, decrease gain | adjusting…gain…[0041], see 119 and 121, figure 1), wherein the one or more imaging devices include the first viewing element (endoscope…visualization element [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Verma further discloses the medical device is an endoscope (endoscope [0014]).
Regarding claim 8, Verma further discloses the one or more processors further perform the steps of: determining a current frame rate of the first viewing element (113, figure 1 | exposure time…frame rate [0060]; Verma); generating a new frame rate (119, figure 1 | calculating…a target exposure time [0039]), using at least one of the first difference and the second difference ([0036]-[0038]); and applying the new frame rate to the first viewing element (121, figure 1 | [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Verma further discloses the medical device including the first viewing element (endoscope…visualization element [0014]) and at least one illuminator (light source [0016] | light pipe…[0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Verma further discloses the one or more processors further perform the steps of: determining a current exposure time (113, figure 1; Verma) of the first viewing element; generating a new exposure time (119, figure 1), using at least one of the first difference and the second difference ([0036]-[0038]); and applying the new exposure time to the first viewing element (121, figure 1 | [0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Verma and Hayashi further disclose the one or more processors further perform the steps of: prior to converting the new illumination value to the first voltage value, determining if the current illumination value is below or above the new illumination value (see 111 to 117, figure 1; Verma); if the current illumination value is below the new illumination value (increase the brightness level; see 117, figure 1), converting the new illumination value to the first voltage value (voltage is…[0050]; Hayashi); and if the current illumination value is above the new illumination value (reduce the brightness level; see 117, figure 1), increasing a frame rate of the first viewing element (exposure time…frame rate [0060] | adjusting…exposure time [0041]; frame rate can be adjusted/increased due to the adjustment to the exposure time).
Regarding claim 12, Verma further discloses generating a new illumination value, using at least one of the first difference and the second difference (Bu [0038]; Verma), includes determining a first error coefficient of the first image and a second error coefficient of a second image (115, figure 1 | see equations 1-4, [0031]-[0038]), wherein the second image was received by the control unit prior to the first image (reference brightness B and a constant K [0036] | interpreted the reference brightness is with respect to the second/previous image for the just-noticeable brightness difference); wherein the first error coefficient is the first difference if the current illumination value is greater than the target high illumination value (see Bu-Bc in Equation 4 [0038]); and wherein the first error coefficient is the second difference if the current illumination value is less than the target low illumination value (see Bu-Bc in Equation 4 [0038] | acceptable ranges of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; maximum illumination…minimum illumination [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Verma further discloses the one or more processors further perform the steps of: displaying, via at least one electronic display (abstract; Verma), a second image received from the first viewing element (displaying images…105, figure 1), wherein the second image is illuminated by the one or more illuminators receiving the first voltage value (light source [0016]).
Regarding claim 16, Verma discloses a method of enhancing images obtained by a medical device system (endoscopic system [0016]), wherein the medical device system comprises (a) one or more processers (processors…[0091]), and (b) a medical device (endoscope [0014]) operatively coupled to the one or more processers, wherein the medical device is configured to be inserted into a body of a patient (endoscope [0014]) and includes a first viewing element (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a camera, image sensor, etc. [0026] | endoscope…visualization element [0014]) and one or more illuminators (light source [0016] | light pipe…[0021]), the method comprising the steps of: receiving a first image from the first viewing element (107, figure 1); determining a current illumination value of the first image (109, figure 1); determining a first difference between the current illumination value and a target high illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a high or upper threshold value) if the current illumination value is greater than the target high illumination value (decision block 111, figure 1 would occur if the current illumination value is greater than the target high illumination value); determining a second difference between the current illumination value and a target low illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a low threshold value) if the current illumination value is less than the target low illumination value (decision block 111, figure 1 would occur if the current illumination value is less than the target low illumination value); generating a new illumination value (115, figure 1; [0035]), using at least one of the first difference and the second difference ([0036]-[0038]); and converting the new illumination value to for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device (121, figure 1). Verma is silent regarding converting the new illumination value to a first voltage value for application to the one or more illuminators of the medical device.
Hayashi teaches a processor (200, figure 2) with a light source device (201, figure 2). The light source device includes a plurality of LEDs, where voltage can be changed to adjust the drive current value of the LED ([0050]). Changing the voltage and drive current value would also change the light emission of the LED ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to modify the system to convert the new illumination value to a voltage value for application to one or more illuminators as taught by Hayashi ([0050]). Doing so would adjust/change the light emission of the light source/LED ([0050]). The modified system would converting the new illumination value to a first voltage value (voltage is…[0050]; Hayashi) for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device (121, figure 1; Verma).
Regarding claim 17, Verma and Hayashi further disclose determining if the new illumination value is greater than a maximum illumination value (207, figure 2; Verma | patient safety…threshold [0047]); and if the new illumination value is greater than the maximum illumination value (see “YES”, figure 2), converting the maximum illumination value to a second voltage value (voltage is…[0050]; Hayashi) for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device (maintain the light source illuminance level [0049]; Verma), and increasing a gain of one or more imaging devices (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a camera, image sensor, etc. [0026] | endoscope…visualization element [0014]; increasing the gain…[0049]) of the medical device.
Regarding claim 18, Verma further discloses determining a current exposure time of the first viewing element (113, figure 1; Verma); generating a new exposure time (119, figure 1), using at least one of the first difference and the second difference ([0036]-[0038]); and applying the new exposure time to the first viewing element (121, figure 1 | [0040]).
Regarding claim 19, Verma further discloses determining a current frame rate of the first viewing element (113, figure 1 | exposure time…frame rate [0060]); generating a new frame rate (119, figure 1 | calculating…a target exposure time [0039]), using at least one of the first difference and the second difference ([0036]-[0038]); and applying the new frame rate to the first viewing element (121, figure 1 | [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Verma discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions (non-transitory machine-readable media…[0014]) for causing a computer (accessible by a machine…[0091]) to perform a method of enhancing images obtained by a first viewing element (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a camera, image sensor, etc. [0026] | endoscope…visualization element [0014]) in a medical device system (endoscopic system [0016]), wherein the medical device system comprises a processor (processors…[0091]) configured to implement the method, and a medical device (endoscope [0014]) operatively coupled to the processor, the medical device being configured for insertion into a body of a patient (endoscope [0014]) and including the first viewing element and one or more illuminators (light source [0016] | light pipe…[0021]), the method comprising the steps of: receiving a first image from the first viewing element (107, figure 1); determining a current illumination value of the first image (109, figure 1); determining a first difference between the current illumination value and a target high illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a high or upper threshold value) if the current illumination value is greater than the target high illumination value (decision block 111, figure 1 would occur if the current illumination value is greater than the target high illumination value); determining a second difference between the current illumination value and a target low illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a low threshold value) if the current illumination value is less than the target low illumination value (decision block 111, figure 1 would occur if the current illumination value is less than the target low illumination value); generating a new illumination value (115, figure 1; [0035]), using at least one of the first difference and the second difference ([0036]-[0038]); and converting the new illumination value to for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device (121, figure 1). Verma is silent regarding converting the new illumination value to a first voltage value for application to the one or more illuminators of the medical device.
Hayashi teaches a processor (200, figure 2) with a light source device (201, figure 2). The light source device includes a plurality of LEDs, where voltage can be changed to adjust the drive current value of the LED ([0050]). Changing the voltage and drive current value would also change the light emission of the LED ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to modify the system to convert the new illumination value to a voltage value for application to one or more illuminators as taught by Hayashi ([0050]). Doing so would adjust/change the light emission of the light source/LED ([0050]). The modified system would converting the new illumination value to a first voltage value (voltage is…[0050]; Hayashi) for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device (121, figure 1; Verma).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US 2021/0195081) and Hayashi (US 2024/0268651) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boulais (US 2005/0131279).
Verma and Hayashi disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 1. They are silent regarding determining the current illumination value of the first image includes accumulating and summing pixel values of the first image.
Boulais teaches an imaging electronics subsystem (60, figure 3A) that provides electrical power to a light source ([0073]). The number of saturated pixels are monitored and the light source intensity is adjusted to achieve appropriate exposure, where the number of saturated pixels is below a minimum threshold ([0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to monitor the number of saturated pixel to adjust the intensity of the light source ([0073]). Doing so would achieve appropriate exposure ([0073]). The modified system would determining the current illumination value of the first image includes accumulating and summing pixel values (number of saturated pixels…below a minimum threshold [0073]) of the first image.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US 2021/0195081) and Hayashi (US 2024/0268651) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Talbert (US 2020/0404143).
Verma and Hayashi disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 12. They are silent regarding generating the new illumination value further includes determining a proportional tuning constant, an integral tuning constant, and a derivative tuning constant each associated with the medical device.
Talbert teaches an imaging system with a PID (proportional, integral, and derivative) control algorithm to ensure the captured scene maintains a desired video exposure level to maximize the dynamic range of the image sensor or to achieve a desired scene response desired by the end user ([0037]). The light pulse is adjusted proportionally based on a calculated error measurement, and the error measurement is calculated by comparing desired exposure levels against measure exposure levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to also have a PID control algorithm as taught by Talbert ([0037]). Doing so would maximize the dynamic range of the image sensor or to achieve a desired scene response desired by the end user ([0037]). The modified system would comprise generating the new illumination value further includes determining a proportional tuning constant (proportional…PID [0179]), an integral tuning constant (integral…PID [0179]), and a derivative tuning constant (derivative…PID [0179]). each associated with the medical device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US 2021/0195081) and Hayashi (US 2024/0268651) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verma (US 2022/0086412).
Verma further discloses the current illumination value is a first current illumination value (109, figure 1), the target high illumination value is a first target high illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a high or upper threshold value), the target low illumination value is a first target low illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a low threshold value), and the new illumination value is a first new illumination value (115, figure 1; [0035]). Verma and Hayashi are silent regarding the one or more processors further perform the steps of: receiving a second image from a second viewing element; determining a second current illumination value of the second image; determining a third difference between the second current illumination value and a second target high illumination value if the second current illumination value is greater than the second target high illumination value; determining a fourth difference between the second current illumination value and a second target low illumination value if the second current illumination value is less than the second target low illumination value; generating a second new illumination value, using at least one of the third difference and the fourth difference; and converting the second new illumination value to a second voltage value for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device.
Verma 2022 teaches an endoscope may include one or more image sensors and one or more illumination devices ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to modify the system to have one or more image sensors and illumination devices as taught by Verma ([0027]) that are also controlled by processors. Doing so would be a suitable alternative to an endoscope with a single image sensor ([0027]). The modified system would have the one or more processors further perform the steps of: receiving a second image from a second viewing element (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a camera, image sensor, etc. [0026] | one or more image sensors [0027]; Verma 2022 | endoscope…visualization element [0014]; 107, figure 1 in Verma 2021); determining a second current illumination value of the second image (109, figure 1 | processor would these steps for the one or more image sensors; Verma 2021); determining a third difference between the second current illumination value and a second target high illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a high or upper threshold value) if the second current illumination value is greater than the second target high illumination value (decision block 111, figure 1 would occur if the current illumination value is greater than the target high illumination value); determining a fourth difference between the second current illumination value and a second target low illumination value (difference between a user-defined image brightness and a current image brightness [0032] | acceptable range of the user-defined image brightness [0033]; interpreted there to be a low threshold value) if the second current illumination value is less than the second target low illumination value (decision block 111, figure 1 would occur if the current illumination value is less than the target low illumination value); generating a second new illumination value (115, figure 1; [0035]), using at least one of the third difference and the fourth difference ([0036]-[0038]); and converting the second new illumination value to a second voltage value (voltage is…[0050]; Hayashi) for application to one or more illuminators of the medical device (121, figure 1; Verma).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: these references discuss voltage control of an LED to control the amount of illumination, see [0046] in Kubo (US 2022/0400930) and [0074] in Nishio (US 2019/0110663).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 PM.
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.
PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
May 5, 2026
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights