DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/24 has been considered by the examiner (note, however, that NPL reference No. 1 has been crossed off by the examiner because it has not been supplied by applicant).
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the abstract of the disclosure, on the third line from the bottom, "comprising" should be changed to --comprises--. Also in the abstract, the last sentence should be changed to
--The light source of the lighting system is a wearable light for use in an operating theater.--. On line 4 of paragraph [005], "understood, that" should be changed to
--understood that,--, and on line 6 of this paragraph, the word "portion" should be changed to --portions--. On the first line of paragraph [008], the word "comprising" should be changed to --comprises--, and also on this line, the comma after "light" should be deleted. On the first line of paragraph [011], "further comprising" should be changed to --and further comprises-- (and note that the same change should also be made on the first line of paragraphs [012], [013], [014], [018], [019], [024], [025], and [032]). On the first line of paragraph [009], "comprising" should again be changed to --comprises--, and on the third line of paragraph [013], "and" should be changed to --wherein the--. On the second line of paragraph [031], "comprising" should be changed to --comprises--. Also, at the bottom of page 4, the text description of paragraph [040] has been left blank, and therefore it is not clear if there should be text for this paragraph, or if no such paragraph [040] should exist. On the first line of paragraph [055], "a" should be deleted. On line 3 of paragraph [057], the word --that-- or --who-- should be inserted after "provider". On the second line of paragraph [058], the word "reference" should be changed to --application--. On the second line of paragraph [065], the word "turned" should be changed to --turn--. On the first line of paragraph [066], "of these" should be deleted. On line 7 of paragraph [069], the word "user's" should be changed to --users'--. On line 5 of paragraph [070], "4" should be changed to --2-- (and note that the same change should also be made on the penultimate line of this paragraph, on the second line of paragraph [078], on lines 2, 4, 5 and 7 of paragraph, on lines 2, 6 and 7 of paragraph [083]). On line 6 of paragraph [070], --he/she-- should be inserted before the word "invokes". On line 6 of paragraph [076], the word --of-- should be inserted after "any". In paragraph [077], line 7, the word "device" should be changed to --surgical light -- (note what is recited on the first line of this paragraph). On the second line of paragraph [081], "90" should be changed to a different reference numeral, the reason being that this reference numeral has already been used to denote the application (see paragraph [062], line 3). On the penultimate line of paragraph [082], the word "mechanism" should be changed to --mechanisms--. On the first line of paragraph [083], "a digital microphone" should be changed to --the digital microphone-- (note that the digital microphone 86 has already been previously described in paragraph [080]). On line 5 of paragraph [083], "80" is incorrect, i.e., this reference numeral has already been used to denote the PCB. On the second line of paragraph [085], the first occurrence of "250" should be deleted. On the first line of paragraph [086], the word --ones-- should be inserted after "Certain". In paragraph [0105], lines 4-5, "a patient and/or a surgeon engaged transducers that are measuring" should be changed to --patient and/or surgeon engaged transducers that measure--. On line 6 of paragraph [0106], the word "appreciated" should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because reference numeral 90 shown in figure 5A should be replaced with a different reference numeral, the reason being that reference numeral 90 has already been used in figures 2 and 3 to denote application 90 (see paragraph [062], line 3, of the specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 2, the word --handsfree-- should be inserted before "control".
In claim 5, line 2, "and" should be changed to --wherein the-- (and note that the same change should also be made on line 2 of claim 6).
On the first line of claim 9, the word "comprising" should be changed to
--comprises--.
On the first line of claim 11, the word "marker" should be changed to --markers--.
In claim 20, line 1, the word --the-- should be inserted after "wherein", and also on this line, the word "as" should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang, U.S. Patent No. 10,842,002.
As to claim 1, Chang discloses
a lighting system comprising:
(a) a light source (the claimed light source reads on the voice-activated headlamp disclosed in Chang's abstract); and
(b) a handsfree control system in communication with the light source (note Chang's abstract which discloses head-mounted accessories that are equipped with no touch hands-free controls, note that such accessories are used in Chang for controlling the above-noted headlamp), wherein the handsfree control system is configured for one or more of voice control, motion control, control via biometric feedback, and position-based control of the light source (note that in Chang's hands-free control system the above-noted headlamp is controlled by the surgeon's voice).
As to claim 2, note figure 4 of Chang which shows that the above-noted headlamp is fitted to eyewear.
As to claims 4 and 5, note that Chang's abstract and also column 1, lines 39-50, which disclose the use of a microphone which will inherently be in communication with a processor, and the hands-free control system of this reference will inherently be configured for voice control comprising verbal commands from the surgeon for adjusting the above-noted headlamp to be on/off, brighter and/or dimmer.
As to claim 12, note that Chang's hands-free control system inherently controls the intensity of the above-noted headlamp, i.e., the brightness thereof, as noted above.
7. Claims 1, 3-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferguson, U.S. Patent No. 10,708,990.
As to claim 1, Ferguson discloses
a lighting system comprising:
(a) a light source (the claimed light source reads on Ferguson's light source 32 disclosed at column 2, line 27); and
(b) a handsfree control system in communication with the light source (note that Ferguson discloses that the above-noted light source is controlled by the user's voice, as indicated at column 4, lines 60-61, and Ferguson therefore comprises a hands-free control system in communication with the above-noted light source 32), wherein the handsfree control system is configured for one or more of voice control, motion control, control via biometric feedback, and position-based control of the light source (as noted above, Ferguson's hands-free control system is used for controlling light source 32 via the user's voice).
As to claim 3, see column 4, lines 35-37, of Ferguson.
As to claims 4 and 5, note that Ferguson'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 Ferguson processor (note Ferguson’s microcontroller 62), and the hands-free control system of this reference will inherently use voice commands from the user which comprise verbal commands for adjusting light source 32 to be on, off, brighter and/or dimmer.
As to claim 12, note that Ferguson's hands-free control system inherently controls the intensity of the above-noted light source 32, i.e., the brightness thereof.
8. 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 one or more of voice control, motion control, control via biometric feedback, and position-based control of the light source (the above-noted light in Pierce is disclosed as being controlled by the user's voice, see paragraph [0023] of this reference).
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
9. 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, 6-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, supra.
As to claim 3, although Chang 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 Chang'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 Chang light source is to enable remote control thereof.
As to claim 6, although Chang 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 Chang 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 Chang is to provide an alternative way of controlling the Chang light source, i.e., so that the user can control the on, off or brightness state of the Chang light source using motion control, either in addition to or instead of using voice control.
As to claim 7, although Chang does not disclose that the above-noted accelerometer is mounted to Chang's eyewear, any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the accelerometer in Chang (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 8, although Chang does not disclose that the hands-free control system is based on a timing protocol, 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 control a hands-free light source based on a timing protocol, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Pierce, supra (note paragraph [0024] of this reference). The motivation for having the Chang light source being controlled based on a timing protocol is so that the lights can automatically be turned on or off, or have the brightness thereof adjusted, automatically at certain times during the medical or dental procedure.
As to claim 9, although Chang 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 Chang 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, although Chang 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 Chang is to provide an additional or alternative way of controlling the Chang 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, the limitations of these claims 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 Chang so that Chang'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 Chang'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 noted above, the Chang control system inherently includes a microphone for input of voice commands by the medical professional.
As to claims 15 and 16, 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, the limitation of this claim would have been obvious for the reason noted above in the rejection of claim 9.
As to claim 18, although Chang 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 Chang is to obtain the well-known benefits of such a neural network.
As to claim 19, note that Chang'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, to the extent that Chang does not disclose using biometric feedback, note that this limitation is not required because claim 13 recites that the control system is configured for implementing one or more of voice control, motion control, etc, and because Chang discloses voice control, as noted above, claim 20 is met, i.e., claim 13 only requires at least one of the recited options of voice control, motion control, control via biometric feedback and instrument position based control.
10. 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, 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, 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 Chang 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, 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, 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, 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, the limitations of these claims 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 noted above, the Pierce control system inherently includes a microphone for input of voice commands by the medical professional.
As to claims 15 and 16, 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, the limitation of this claim would have been obvious for the reason noted above in the rejection of claim 9.
As to claim 18, 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, note that 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, to the extent that Pierce does not disclose using biometric feedback, note that this limitation is not required because claim 13 recites that the control system is configured for implementing one or more of voice control, motion control, etc, and because Pierce discloses voice control, as noted above, claim 20 is met, i.e., claim 13 only requires at least one of the recited options of voice control, motion control, control via biometric feedback and instrument position based control.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Note also paragraph [0017] of Strolin, paragraph [0087] of Johnson et al, paragraph [0218] of Tan et al, and paragraph [0027] of Nazareth et al, cited on the attached PTO-892 form, each of which discloses a further example of a light source in a medical environment which is controlled by a user's voice.
Conclusion
12. 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 October 20, 2025