DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 6 of claim 1, "a" should be changed to --the-- (note that a medical procedure has already been recited on line 4 of claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On line 3 of claim 14, the recitation of "one or more light sources of a plurality of light sources within the medical environment" lacks clear antecedent basis, the reason being that claim 1 already recites at least one light source, i.e., it is not clear if the one or more light sources of a plurality of light sources within the medical environment, as recited on line 3 of claim 14, includes the at least one light source already recited in claim 1, or if they are in addition to the one already recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munari, U.S. Patent No. 10,767,822.
As to claim 1, Munari discloses, in figures 1A, 1B and 2B,
a computer-implemented method (note figure 2B of Munari which shows a computer system for performing a computer-implemented method) for reducing light pollution in a medical environment (for reducing light pollution in a medical environment is just a statement of intended use, but note that the Munari computer system is for use in a medical environment, see column 3, lines 14-17, and note also that it performs the function of reducing light pollution, i.e., light pollution is being broadly interpreted by the examiner to mean simply unwanted light output from a light source, and note column 5, line 58 through column 6 column line 34, and also column 11, lines 28-51, where Munari discloses reducing such unwanted light output from a light source), comprising:
determining, by a computing system of the medical environment (as noted above, Munari discloses using a computing system, as shown in figure 2A, in a medical environment) that lighting in the medical environment is to be adjusted for use during a medical procedure, the lighting in the medical environment comprising light emitted by at least one medical light for illumination of a subject for observation during the medical procedure (the claimed at least one medical light can be read on one of the light sources 103 shown in figures 1A and 1B, one of light sources 103 which performs illumination of a subject, i.e., patient, for observation during the medical procedure);
identifying, by the computing system, at least one device in the medical environment that is spaced apart from the at least one medical light (the claimed at least one device can be read on any second one of the above-noted light sources 103, note that all of the light sources 103 are spaced apart from each other) and is communicatively connected to the computing system (note the communication lines illustrated in figure 1B of Munari between controller 118a/118b and the individual light sources 103), the at least one device including at least one light source associated with the light pollution (the above-noted second one of the above-noted light sources 103 will be associated with the light pollution when it emits light which is obstructed by one of the medical professionals and/or obstructed by any other object in the room and, due to such obstruction, a shadow is cast onto the patient, i.e., as noted above, light pollution is being broadly interpreted by the examiner to simply mean unwanted light output from one of the light sources, and any time one of the light sources 103 is obstructed and therefore causes a shadow to be cast onto the patient, the light emitted from such obstructed light source can be interpreted as light pollution) and not with the illumination of the subject for observation during the medical procedure (the above-noted second one of the light sources that is being obstructed and therefore casting a shadow on the patient can be interpreted as not being associated with the illumination of the subject for observation during the medical procedure, the reason being that the light output from such light source is obstructed and therefore is not illuminating the patient);
determining that a setting of the at least one light source associated with the light pollution is to be adjusted to a predefined setting associated with reducing the light pollution during the medical procedure (note that during the computer-implemented method of Munari, when the above-noted second one of the light sources that is being obstructed and therefore casting a shadow on the patient, such an occurrence will be detected by the figure 2B computer system of Munari, and such computer system will inherently determine that a setting of such obstructed light source needs to be adjusted to a predefined setting associated with the light pollution during the medical procedure, i.e., it will be either dimmed or turned off entirely, again see column 5, line 58 through column 6, line 34, and also column 11, lines 28-51, of Munari); and
causing the setting of the at least one light source associated with the light pollution to be adjusted to the predefined setting (as noted above, during the computer-implemented method of Munari, when the above-noted second one of the light sources that is being obstructed and therefore casting a shadow on the patient, such an occurrence will be detected by the figure 2B computer system of Munari, and such computer system will inherently determine that a setting of such obstructed light source needs to be adjusted to a predefined setting associated with the light pollution during the medical procedure, i.e., it will be either dimmed or turned off entirely, again see column 5, line 58 through column 6, line 34, and also column 11, lines 28-51, of Munari).
As to claims 18 and 20, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 1 (note that Munari discloses the use of a non-transitory computer-readable medium and one or more processors and memory for storing programs for execution of the Munari method, see column 12, line 5 through column 14, line 10 of this reference).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munari, supra.
As to claim 2, note that during the computer-implemented method disclosed by Munari, the step of determining that the lighting in the medical environment is to be adjusted will inherently or obviously include receiving, by Munari's computing system, a selection to use the medical environment for the medical procedure, and will also inherently or obviously include sending, by the computing system, a notification to the light source 103 being obstructed that its setting is to be adjusted, i.e., as noted above, such light source will need to be either dimmed or turned off entirely, i.e., such limitations will be inherent or obvious because by necessity the computing system shown in figure 2B of this reference will need to know the specific medical environment that it is to be used within for the specific medical procedure being performed, and by necessity, the obstructed light source 103 will need to receive some type of notification that it needs to be dimmed or turned off entirely in order to prevent it from casting a shadow on the patient, as noted above.
As to claim 3, the step of determining that the lighting in the medical environment is to be adjusted will either inherently or obviously include identifying that a setting of the above-noted medical light has been adjusted, because if the user enters an input using communication interface 121 (see figure 1B and figure 2B) in order to change the setting of the above-noted medical light, it will be necessary for Munari's computing system to be aware of such a change.
As to claim 4, the claimed optical sensors of the medical environment can be read on cameras 115, and note column 16, lines 9-29, of Munari regarding the detection of adjustment of the ambient light in the medical environment, i.e., the adjustment of the above-noted light pollution will be either inherently or obviously based at least in part on the detected change in ambient light.
As to claim 5, the claimed image sensor can be read on the above-noted cameras 115, and the step of detecting, using a machine learning model, at least one medical object associated with the medical procedure within the one or more images, wherein the setting of the above-noted obstructed light source is changed in response to the medical object, although not disclosed by Munari, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use a machine learning model, in combination with one or more cameras, to detect a certain situation in a medical environment and, in response thereto, make one or more adjustments, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that such a machine learning model could be used in Munari's computer-implemented method together with the cameras 115 in order to detect the obstruction of one or more of Munari’s light sources 103, causing a shadow to be cast onto the patient, and then to send appropriate control signals to the obstructed light source, thereby causing it to be either dimmed or turned off entirely. The same is true for the limitations of claim 6, i.e., such a machine learning model could obviously also be used, in combination with Munari's cameras 115, to detect the activity of a user within the medical environment, e.g., the user moving in front of the above-noted light source 103, thereby causing it to be obstructed and cause a shadow to be cast onto the patient, and then in response to such detection by the camera and machine learning model, either dimming the obstructed light source 103 or turning it off entirely.
As to claim 7, the claimed one or more image sensors can be read on cameras 115 disclosed by Munari, and the limitation of determining the ambient light level of the medical environment based on the images output by such cameras, to the extent not disclosed by Munari, also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use a camera as an ambient light level detector, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that Munari's cameras 115 could be used to determine the ambient light level within the medical environment, and based on the detected ambient light level therein, one or more of the above-noted light sources 103 should be dimmed or turned off entirely due to the variable shadow cast upon the patient due to the changing ambient light level conditions in the medical environment.
As to claim 8, although Munari does not disclose using one or more audio sensors to detect a voice command emitted by the user, i.e., the dentist or surgeon, and in response to such voice command adjusting the setting of the light source associated with the light pollution, this limitation also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use a microphone for receiving a voice command in order to change the light setting of a light source, i.e., either the above-noted medical light which is currently illuminating the patient or the above-noted obstructed light source (note either Szuchmacher or Koo, cited in the previous office actions as two examples of this well-known concept of using an audio sensors for detecting a voice command in order to adjust the light setting of a light source).
As to claim 10, although not disclosed by Munari, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an optical sensor to detect the light emitted by the above-noted medical light, where such emitted light is associated with a light profile, to determine such light profile, and then set the light source associated with the light pollution based at least in part on the light profile, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to detect the light profile of a light source and then adjust the setting of such light source in response thereto, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Hollopeter, as indicated in the previous office actions.
As to claim 11, the claimed one or more optical sensors can be read on cameras 115, the claimed one or more additional light sources within the medical environment can be read on any additional light sources 103 other than the above-noted medical light and at least one light source, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the current light output of all of Munari's light sources 103 could obviously be detected and, based on their location and need to perform illumination during the medical procedure, their individual settings could be set to full brightness, lower brightness (dimmed state), or turned off entirely.
As to claim 12, changing the setting of the at least one light source causing the light pollution, i.e., the one or more light sources which are obstructed and therefore casting shadows on the patient, to an updated setting also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the obstructed light sources that have been dimmed or turned off entirely should go back to their full illumination state when the obstruction no longer exists, i.e., as would be detected by Munari's cameras 115.
As to claim 13, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above, i.e., the claimed optical sensor can be read on camera 115, and such a camera could obviously be used to detect the ambient light level of Munari's medical environment, and the setting of the obstructed light sources could obviously be changed based on the output light obstructed state thereof and/or the detected ambient light level of the medical environment.
As to claim 14, note that Munari's computing system shown in figure 2A will obviously have the ability to identify additional light sources within the medical environment, i.e., because all of the light sources 103 are in communication with controller 118, as shown in figure 1B, and could also obviously determine the location of each of the light sources, and the dimmed or turned off state of each could obviously be based on a quantity of the light sources in the medical environment and also the location thereof.
As to claim 15, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above, i.e., it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use a camera (such as Munari's camera 115) to detect the ambient light level of environment, and such detection could obviously be performed before, during, or subsequent to the obstructed light source 103 having its setting changed.
As to claim 17, as noted above, the claimed predefined setting can be read on the dimmed state or turned off state of the above-noted obstructed light source 103 in Munari, and such dimmed state or turned off state will be a predefined intensity which could obviously be a percentage of maximum luminosity, e.g., 50%, 25%, 10%, etc for a dimmed state.
As to claim 19, the limitations of this claim are rejected for the same reason noted above with regard to claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 9 and 16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the method of claim 1 with the further limitation that the claimed at least one device comprises a display screen within the medical environment, as recited in claim 9, nor does any of the prior art of record disclose or suggest a method of claim 1 with the further limitations of determining, based on the detected ambient light level, that the medical procedure has completed, and then causing the setting of the claimed at least one light source to be adjusted to a default setting corresponding to completion of the medical procedure, as recited in claim 16.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Note also Proske et al and Barsoum et al, cited on the attached PTO-892 form, which disclose computer-implemented methods similar to that of Munari, i.e., they disclose computer-implemented methods including a plurality of light sources for use in a medical environment, i.e., one of these light sources can be read on the claimed medical light and one or more other light sources in the medical environment can be read on the claimed at least one light source associated with light pollution.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 January 28, 2026