DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 03/23/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendments to the claims do not distinguish patentably over the previously applied Pierce reference (USPAP 2021/0306599), for the reasons set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/23/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pierce, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0306599.
As to claim 1, Pierce discloses
a lighting system comprising:
(a) a light source (the claimed light source reads on Pierce's light source disclosed on line 5 of the abstract); and
(b) a handsfree control system in communication with the light source (note that Pierce's light is attached to eyewear as shown on the first page of the patent, and note that Pierce inherently includes a hands-free control system in communication with the light of Pierce), wherein the handsfree control system is configured for control of the light source via biometric feedback (note paragraph [0029] of Pierce which indicates that the light source can be deactivated in response to one or more heat sensors 180 disposed on the head-worn device 130 detecting that the head-worn device is no longer being worn by the user 160, and also note paragraph [0086] of Pierce which indicates that the light source can be controlled by voice or "other physiological inputs generated by a user", and that "biometric recognition" can be used as well as part of the user interface).
As to claim 2, as noted above, Pierce's light is fitted to the user's eyewear.
As to claims 4 and 5, note that Pierce's hands-free control system will inherently include a microphone for receiving the user's voice commands, and such will inherently be in communication with the Pierce processor, and the hands-free control system of this reference will inherently use voice commands from the user which comprise verbal commands for adjusting the above-noted light to be on, off, brighter and/or dimmer.
As to claim 8, note the disclosure in Pierce at paragraph [0024].
As to claim 12, note that Pierce's hands-free control system inherently controls the intensity of the above-noted light, i.e., the brightness thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 3, 6, 7, 9-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce, supra.
As to claim 3, as indicated in the previous office action, although Pierce does not disclose a mobile application or smart watch in communication with the control system of this reference, wherein one or more commands are programmed via the mobile application for control of Pierce's light source, 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 use a mobile application on a mobile device for entering users inputs which control one or more light sources, three examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Neta USPAP 2023/0090020 (see paragraph [0080]), Mehta et al USPAP 2022/0312569 (see paragraph [0077]) and Ferguson, supra (see column 4, lines 35-37). The motivation for using a mobile application for the user to enter commands for controlling the Pierce light source is to enable remote control thereof.
As to claim 6, as indicated in the previous office action, although Pierce does not disclose an accelerometer in communication with the hands-free control system of this reference, wherein the hands-free control system is configured for motion control comprising motion commands for controlling the Pierce light source, 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 use an accelerometer for such a purpose, note wearable control device 228 shown in figure 2 of Baker et al (USPAP 2021/0352442) as one example of this well-known concept. The motivation for using such an accelerometer in Pierce is to provide an alternative way of controlling the Pierce light source, i.e., so that the user can control the on, off or brightness state of the Pierce light source using motion control, either in addition to or instead of using voice control.
As to claim 7, as indicated in the previous office action, although Pierce does not disclose that the above-noted accelerometer is mounted to Pierce's eyewear, any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the accelerometer in Pierce (obvious, as noted above) could be mounted to any part of the user's body which is movable up/down, right/left, etc,
As to claim 9, as indicated in the previous office action, although Pierce does not disclose that the voice activated headlamp comprises one or more lights for emitting light of different wavelengths, 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 that a plurality of lights can be used in medical/dental environments, where these lights are used for emitting light of different wavelengths, i.e., different colors, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Ferguson, supra (see column 3, lines 8-67, of this reference). The motivation for including a plurality of different color lights in the Pierce headlamp is so that different colors of light can be used by the medical professional during different procedures or, alternatively, during different times during a single procedure.
As to claims 10 and 11, as indicated in the previous office action, although Pierce does not disclose the claimed navigation system or markers disposed on an instrument, 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 to control a surgical light using such a navigation system for using such markers disposed on an instrument, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Oelgarth et al, USPAP 2021/0307145 (see paragraphs [0021] and [0057] of this reference). The motivation for using such a teaching in Pierce is to provide an additional or alternative way of controlling the Pierce light source, i.e., by detecting that the medical professional's instrument is being moved close to, or away from, the patient and, in response thereto, automatically turning on/off the light source, or automatically changing its brightness.
As to claim 13, as indicated in the previous office action, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claims 6 and 7, i.e., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an accelerometer could be included in the wearable light in Pierce so that Pierce's headlamp could be controlled by the medical professional by using motion control, i.e., movement of the headlamp assembly up/down or right/left, in view of such a teaching by Baker et al, supra (note that Pierce's voice activated headlamp will inherently or obviously comprise a first light source and a second light source, as per line 2 of claim 13).
As to claim 14, as indicated in the previous office action, the Pierce control system inherently includes a microphone for input of voice commands by the medical professional.
As to claims 15 and 16, as indicated in the previous office action, the limitations of these two claims would have been obvious for the reasons noted above in the rejection of claims 10 and 11.
As to claim 17, as indicated in the previous office action, the limitation of this claim would have been obvious for the reason noted above in the rejection of claim 9.
As to claim 18, as indicated in the previous office action, although Pierce does not disclose the use of a convolutional neural network, 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 use a convolutional neural network in a surgical lighting system, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Liyang et al (CN 111557750A), cited by applicant. The motivation for using such a convolutional neural network in Pierce is to obtain the well-known benefits of such a neural network.
As to claim 19, as indicated in the previous office action, Pierce's control system will inherently control one or more of an illumination pattern, intensity, wavelength, and on/off status of the above-noted first and second light sources.
As to claim 20, as noted above, Pierce’s handsfree control system is configured for control of the light source via biometric feedback, note paragraph [0029] of Pierce which indicates that the light source can be deactivated in response to one or more heat sensors 180 disposed on the head-worn device 130 detecting that the head-worn device is no longer being worn by the user 160, and also note paragraph [0086] of Pierce which indicates that the light source can be controlled by voice or "other physiological inputs generated by a user", and that "biometric recognition" can be used as well as part of the user interface.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 03/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Pierce does not anticipate the newly added limitation in independent claims 1 and 13, i.e., controlling the light source via biometric feedback. Specifically, applicant argues that "[t]he presence or absence of heat...is different from biometric feedback" and that "using biometric features for identification...is not the same as the claimed biometric feedback." This argument is not persuasive because, as noted above, Pierce clearly indicates in paragraph [0029] that the light source can be deactivated in response to one or more heat sensors 180 disposed on the head-worn device 130 detecting that the head-worn device is no longer being worn by the user 160, and also clearly indicates in paragraph [0086] that the light source can be controlled by voice or "other physiological inputs generated by a user", and that "biometric recognition" can be used as part of the user interface. These disclosures by Pierce would clearly be recognized by any person having ordinary skill in the art as meeting the new limitation added to independent claims 1 and 13 that the light source is controlled via biometric feedback. As such, the claims as amended do not distinguish patentably over Pierce.
Action is Final
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Conclusion
7. 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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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 2836 May 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights