DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to applicant’s communication filed 06/24/2026.
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 the Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 34 is objected to for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claims 20-33 are allowed.
Claim 8 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art have been fully considered but are respectfully moot in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 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 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANDAN (US 2020/0060785 A1) in view of DELAND (US 2013/0113909 A1) and further in view of SABINA (US 2016/0259515 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, CAHNDAN teaches a method for controlling a medical light, the method comprising: (¶ 9, Fig. 1: The disclosure is directed to controlling a medical light.)
determining that the medical light is being repositioned based on a signal from at least one… sensor; and in response to determining that the medical light is being repositioned, disabling at least one user input interface of a handle assembly of the medical light... to prevent adjustment of at least one function of the medical light (¶ 21-22, Fig. 2: A determination is made that a medical light is being repositioned based on a signal from a touch sensor 202. In response to determining that the medical light is being repositioned, a controller ignores receipt of signals from a separate sensor 204 on the handle assembly 108 that controls the illumination setting of the light; see ¶ 15-16. This is “to prevent accidental engagement of the touch sensor 204 when the user uses the handle 108 for repositioning the lamp”. Thus, a user input interface is disabled from function while the user is repositioning the light.)
CHANDAN does not teach determining that the light is being repositioned based on a signal from a movement sensor.
However, DELAND, which is similarly directed to controlling a medical light and a camera associated with the medical light, teaches determining that the light is being repositioned based on a signal from a movement sensor. (¶ 17, 23: A movement sensor, such as a gyroscope or accelerometer included in a handle, is used to determine that a medical light source assembly is being moved.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of whether the medical light is being repositioned taught by CHANDAN by using a movement sensor on the medical light as taught by DELAND. Since the references are similarly directed to controlling the operation of a medical light based on movement of the light, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Such a combination would have amounted to a simple substitution of the type of sensor being used to determine movement of the light assembly. As suggested by DELAND (¶ 24), feedback from a movement sensor would be useful for determining illumination commands for the medical light.
CHANDAN does not teach disabling at least one user input interface… from sensing user inputs since the inputs are sensed but ignored in CHANDAN to prevent adjustment of the light during repositioning.
However, SABINA, which is directed to a portable medical device with a touch sensors, teaches disabling the touch sensor during use of the device and therefore teaches the limitation disabling at least one user input interface… from sensing user inputs (¶ 45: “touch input module 122 disables the touch sensor of the touch sensitive scanner 150 while a scan is being performed. The touch sensor may be disabled to ensure that the user does not inadvertently perform a touch gesture during a scan. In one embodiment, the touch sensor is automatically disabled when the touch sensitive scanner 150 detects an object in a field of view of a scanner head”. Also see ¶ 70, 81, 85, and 90, which further discuss disabling the touch sensor on the handle of the device when the device is being used.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disabling of a touch control interface for a medical light while the light is being repositioned taught by CHANDAN in view of DELAND by disabling the input control by disabling the touch sensor so that it cannot sense user inputs as taught by SABINA. This would have yielded predictable results and amounted to implementing another way of disabling changing settings of the medical light, by disabling the sensor to prevent the actual sensing of user inputs rather than ignoring sensor inputs within the computer logic. As taught by SABINA in the portions provided above, such an implementation would prevent inadvertent touch inputs during operation of the device, improving operation.
Regarding Claim 2, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the at least one function of the medical light comprises providing illumination light according to at least one setting, and disabling the at least one user input interface of the handle assembly of the medical light from sensing user inputs to prevent adjustment of the at least one function of the medical light comprises (CHANDAN, ¶ 15-16, 21-22; SABINA, ¶ 45, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. CHANDAN teaches a function of the medical light comprises providing illumination light according to multiple settings, such as different brightness levels.)
disabling the at least one user input interface from sensing a user input corresponding to adjustment of the at least one setting. (CHANDAN, ¶ 15-16, 21-22: The function is adjusting the light intensity using the touch sensor 204 on the medical light handle. The touch sensor is disabled (namely, by ignoring receipt of signals from the touch sensor) in response to determining that the medical light is being repositioned so that the light intensity is not changed or turned off during repositioning.
In view of SABINA, ¶45, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the sensor itself would be disabled from sensing user inputs. The same motivation to combine applies.)
Regarding Claim 3, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the at least one setting comprises an intensity of the illumination light provided by the medical light, a spot size of the illumination light, a color temperature of the illumination light, or a spectral distribution of the illumination light. (CHANDAN, ¶ 15-16, 19-20: An adjusted setting comprises the intensity of the illumination light and a color temperature of the illumination light.)
Regarding Claim 4, CHANDAN in view of DELAND further teaches comprising: determining that the medical light is no longer being repositioned based on the signal from the at least one movement sensor; and in response to determining that the medical light is no longer being repositioned, enabling the at least one user input interface of the handle assembly to sense user inputs corresponding to adjustment of the at least one function of the medical light. (CHANDAN, ¶ 21-22; DELAND, ¶ 25-27, 30, SABINA, ¶ 45: The combination of CHANDAN, DELAND, and SABINA teaches determining when a repositioning of a medical light is complete and after determining the positioning, allowing a healthcare provider to adjust illumination settings of the medical light and enabling a camera to record images.)
In addition to the motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 1, DELAND (¶ 30) further teaches disabling the recording command until repositioning is finished would allow a healthcare provider to adjust lighting before recording, improving the quality of the recording. Furthermore, DELAND at least suggests that lighting is not adjusted during movement but it is adjusted after movement, which is supported by the teachings of CHANDAN. Given the combination with SABINA, the sensor itself would be reenabled when the medical light is not being repositioned.
Regarding Claim 5, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the signal from the at least one movement sensor is associated with a change in angle and/or translation of the medical light. (DELAND, ¶ 13, 17: The movement sensor detects a value associated with a change in angle or translation (i.e. angle and distance relative to the operative field) of the medical light.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 1 applies to claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the at least one movement sensor comprises an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or a position encoder. (DELAND, ¶ 17: The movement sensor is an accelerometer or gyroscope.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 1 applies to claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the user inputs comprise at least one of: a twist of a handle of the handle assembly, a press of a button of the handle assembly, a touch of a capacitive sensor of the handle assembly, a rotation of a dial, a slide of a slider knob, and a rotation of a ring of the handle assembly. (CHANDAN, ¶ 15-16: The user input interface comprises a touch sensor. A twistable handle is also taught in ¶ 19-20.)
Regarding Claim 10, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the at least one function comprises a characteristic of a camera of the medical light. (DELAND, ¶ 13, 15, 25, 30, Fig. 1: The medical light includes a camera 112 and the characteristic is whether the camera is receiving recording commands.)
In addition to the motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 13, it would have been obvious to include a camera with the medical light. As taught by DELAND (¶ 3), this would be advantageous for recording a medical procedure as a teaching tool.
Regarding Claim 11, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the camera is controlled by an external camera controller, and disabling the at least one user input interface of the handle assembly of the medical light from sensing user inputs comprises disabling communication of commands to the external camera controller. (DELAND, ¶ 13, 15, 25: The camera is controlled by a camera controller and they do not record unless they receive a recording command from the controller. In combination with CHANDAN, the camera would not receive the recording commands responsive to determining that the light is being repositioned.)
As further taught by DELAND (¶ 30), disabling the recording command until repositioning is finished would allow a healthcare provider to adjust lighting before recording, improving the quality of the recording.
Regarding Claim 13, CHANDAN teaches a medical light comprising: a handle assembly configured for grasping by a user for moving the medical light, the handle assembly comprising at least one user input interface configured to receive inputs from the user for adjusting at least one function of the medical light… (¶ 12-16, Fig. 2: A handle assembly 108 is included on a medical light 100 for repositioning the medical light. The handle includes a user input interface for adjusting a function of the medical light, such as the light intensity. The input interface is a touch sensor 204.)
and a controller comprising one or more processors, memory, and one or more programs stored in the memory for execution by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more programs include instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors cause the controller to: (¶ 12, 15: A control circuit board is connected to a main controller.)
determine that the medical light is being repositioned based on a signal from the at least one… sensor; and in response to determining that the medical light is being repositioned, disable the at least one user input interface of the handle assembly… to prevent adjustment of the at least one function of the medical light (¶ 21-22, Fig. 2: A determination is made that a medical light is being repositioned based on a signal from a touch sensor 202. In response to determining that the medical light is being repositioned, a controller ignores receipt of signals from a separate sensor 204 on the handle assembly 108 that controls the illumination setting of the light; see ¶ 15-16. This is “to prevent accidental engagement of the touch sensor 204 when the user uses the handle 108 for repositioning the lamp”. Thus, a user input interface is disabled from function while the user is repositioning the light.)
CHANDAN does not teach at least one movement sensor configured to detect movement of the medical light and determining that the light is being repositioned based on a signal from a movement sensor.
However, DELAND, which is similarly directed to controlling a medical light, teaches at least one movement sensor configured to detect movement of the medical light determining that the light is being repositioned based on a signal from a movement sensor. (¶ 17, 23: A movement sensor, such as a gyroscope or accelerometer included in a handle, is used to determine that a medical light source assembly is being moved.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of whether the medical light is being repositioned taught by CHANDAN by using a movement sensor on the medical light as taught by DELAND. Since the references are similarly directed to controlling the operation of a medical light based on movement of the light, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Such a combination would have amounted to a simple substitution of the type of sensor being used to determine movement of the light assembly. As suggested by DELAND (¶ 24), feedback from a movement sensor would be useful for determining illumination commands for the medical light.
CHANDAN does not teach disable at least one user input interface… from sensing user inputs since the inputs are sensed but ignored in CHANDAN to prevent adjustment of the light during repositioning.
However, SABINA, which is directed to a portable medical device with a touch sensors, teaches disabling the touch sensor during use of the device and therefore teaches the limitation disable at least one user input interface… from sensing user inputs (¶ 45: “touch input module 122 disables the touch sensor of the touch sensitive scanner 150 while a scan is being performed. The touch sensor may be disabled to ensure that the user does not inadvertently perform a touch gesture during a scan. In one embodiment, the touch sensor is automatically disabled when the touch sensitive scanner 150 detects an object in a field of view of a scanner head”. Also see ¶ 70, 81, 85, and 90, which further discuss disabling the touch sensor on the handle of the device when the device is being used.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disabling of a touch control interface for a medical light while the light is being repositioned taught by CHANDAN in view of DELAND by disabling the input control by disabling the touch sensor so that it cannot sense user inputs as taught by SABINA. This would have yielded predictable results and amounted to implementing another way of disabling changing settings of the medical light, by disabling the sensor to prevent the actual sensing of user inputs rather than ignoring sensor inputs within the computer logic. As taught by SABINA in the portions provided above, such an implementation would prevent inadvertent touch inputs during operation of the device, improving operation.
Regarding Claim 14, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the controller is located in the handle assembly. (CHANDAN, ¶ 12: The control circuit board 210 is located in the handle assembly. See Fig. 2 controller 210. It would have been obvious for the controller to be located in the handle, the housing, or any other location of the medical light.)
Regarding Claim 15, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the controller is located in a housing of the medical light. (CHANDAN, ¶ 12: The main controller is located in the lamp head, or the housing of the medical light. It would have been obvious for the controller to be located in the handle, the housing, or any other location of the medical light.)
Regarding Claim 16, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the medical light comprises an arm that comprises the at least one movement sensor. (DELAND, ¶ 13, 17: The movement sensor is included on the handles 16 but can be included in any location that allows the sensor to detect movement of the light assembly, such as the arm 18.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 13 applies to claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the at least one user input interface comprises one of a twistable handle, at least one button, at least one touch sensor, at least one rotatable dial, at least one slider knob, and at least one rotatable ring. (CHANDAN, ¶ 15-16: The user input interface comprises a touch sensor. A twistable handle is also taught in ¶ 19-20.)
Regarding Claim 18, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA further teaches wherein the medical light comprises a camera. (DELAND, ¶ 13, 15, Fig. 1: The medical light includes a camera 112.)
In addition to the motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 13, it would have been obvious to include a camera with the medical light. As taught by DELAND (¶ 3), this would be advantageous for recording a medical procedure as a teaching tool.
Regarding Claim 19, CHANDAN in view of DELAND further teaches wherein the camera is controlled by an external camera controller, and disabling the at least one user input interface of the handle assembly of the medical light from sensing user inputs comprises disabling communication of commands to the external camera controller. (DELAND, ¶ 13, 15, 25: The camera is controlled by a camera controller and they do not record unless they receive a recording command from the controller. In combination with CHANDAN, the camera would not receive the recording commands responsive to determining that the light is being repositioned.)
As further taught by DELAND (¶ 30), disabling the recording command until repositioning is finished would allow a healthcare provider to adjust lighting before recording, improving the quality of the recording.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANDAN (US 2020/0060785 A1) in view of DELAND (US 2013/0113909 A1) and further in view of SABINA (US 2016/0259515 A1) and VANBLON (US 2019/0075355 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA teaches all the limitations of claim 5, on which claim 6 depends.
While CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA teaches determining that the medical light is being repositioned, CHANDAN in view of DELAND does not teach that the determination comprises determining that the change in angle and/or translation of the medical light exceeds one or more predetermined thresholds.
However, VANBLON, which teaches determining movement of a device based on gyroscopes, accelerometers, or distance sensors, teaches that the determination comprises determining that the change in angle and/or translation of the medical light exceeds one or more predetermined thresholds. (¶ 61: A determination is made that a remote-control device is being moved based on a vertical or horizontal translation threshold of the device exceeding a threshold. Otherwise, the movement is determined to be inadvertent and ignored.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of whether a medical light is being repositioned based on a sensor signal taught by CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA by evaluating a translation threshold as taught by VANBLON. While VANBLON is directed to operating a remote-control device, the technical solution of determining whether a device is being moved based on a sensor value threshold is applicable to the instant application and to the determination of movement of a medical light taught by CHANDAN and DELAND. As suggested by VANBLON (¶ 61), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have included evaluation of a sensor value threshold in order to prevent operation of a device due to inadvertent movement by the user.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANDAN (US 2020/0060785 A1) in view of DELAND (US 2013/0113909 A1) and further in view of SABINA (US 2016/0259515 A1) and WATSON (US 2024/0041196 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 12 depends.
While CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA teaches determining that the medical light is being repositioned CHANDAN in view of DELAND does not teach that the determinations comprises using a machine learning model to determine that the medical light is being repositioned.
However, WATSON, which teaches determining movement of a tool based on a machine learning model, teaches determining that [a tool] is being repositioned comprises using a machine learning model to determine that [the tool] is being repositioned. (¶ 125, 205: A machine learning model is used to determine if a tool is being moved and the type of movement.)
In combination, CHANDAN in view of DELAND, SABINA, and WATSON therefore teaches wherein determining that the medical light is being repositioned comprises using a machine learning model to determine that the medical light is being repositioned.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of whether a medical light is being repositioned based on a sensor signal taught by CHANDAN in view of DELAND and SABINA by using a machine learning model to determine whether the device is being moved and the type of movement as taught by WATSON. While WATSON is directed to operating an oral treatment device, the technical solution of determining whether a device is being moved based on a machine learning model is applicable to the instant application and to the determination of movement of a medical light taught by CHANDAN and DELAND. As taught by WATSON (¶ 124-126), determining the manner a device is being moved using machine learning prevents improper operation of the device. Such a technical solution would have been advantageous to a person of ordinary skill in the art concerned with preventing improper or inadvertent operation of a medical light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-33 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations:
“while the medical light is being repositioned, adjusting the at least one characteristic of the illumination light to a second setting in response to a user input to at least one user input interface of a handle assembly of the medical light; determining that the medical light is no longer being repositioned based on the signal from the at least one movement sensor; and in response to determining that the medical light is no longer being repositioned, resetting the at least one characteristic of the illumination light from the second setting to the first setting.”
Regarding Claim 29, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations:
“while the medical light is being repositioned, adjust the at least one characteristic of the illumination light to a second setting in response to a user input to the at least one user input interface; determine that the medical light is no longer being repositioned based on the signal from at least one movement sensor; and in response to determining that the medical light is no longer being repositioned, reset the at least one characteristic of the illumination light from the second setting to the first setting.”
These limitations, in specific combination as recited by claims 20 and 29, define the patentability of the claims. Dependent claims 21-28 and 30-33 are allowed for at least the same rationale.
Claim 34 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 34 requires resetting the medical light to a setting that was stored before the medical light was repositioned after determining that the medical light is no longer being repositioned, thus accounting for inadvertent adjustments made to a function of the light in the timeframe before it is determined that the medical light is being repositioned and the user input interface of the handle assembly is disabled. Such a feature was not found in the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 34, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations:
“determining that the medical light is no longer being repositioned based on the signal from the at least one movement sensor; and resetting the at least one function of the medical light to a stored setting corresponding to a setting of the at least one function before the medical light was repositioned in order to account for inadvertent adjustments to the at least one function that were made prior to determining that the medical light was being repositioned.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US 2019/0141812 A1) teaches deactivation of a motion sensor responsive to certain conditions. (¶ 80)
Recker (US 2010/0141153 A) also teaches disabling a motion sensor responsive to certain conditions. (¶ 347)
Hulford (US 2021/0085424 A1) teaches a medical light with indicators of user engagement with the medical light. (¶ 319)
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 RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights