DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrd (U.S. Patent No. 6633328) in view of Hampe (U.S. Patent No. 10292785). Byrd teaches a surgical lighting system, comprising: a light head housing 12 including a handle (50 and col. 1 lines 51-53) mounted to the light head housing and protruding downward from the light head housing, the handle including a handle housing having a sufficient size to be gripped by the human hand (inherent); and a camera (22) mounted within the handle housing, the camera having a field of view that encompasses at least a portion of the region of interest; wherein the handle housing has an upper generally tubular section mounted to the light head housing and a lower generally tubular section extending downward from a bottom of the upper generally tubular section.
Byrd teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for a plurality of light emitting elements therein that are arranged to emit light downward to a region of interest. Hampe teaches that it was known to use a plurality of light emitting elements (10) therein that are arranged to emit light downward to a region of interest. See fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Hamp for the purpose of providing homogenous cold light.
Byrd teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the outer perimeter of the lower generally tubular section being relatively wider in axial cross section than the outer perimeter of the upper generally tubular section over a portion of the upper generally tubular section. Hampe teaches in fig. 2 that it was known to provide the handle having an outer perimeter of the lower generally tubular section 12 being relatively wider in axial cross section than the outer perimeter of the upper generally tubular section 4 over a portion of the upper generally tubular section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Hamp for the purpose of ergonomics such that a simple grasping of the grip is possible and also a slipping off of the hand of the operator during a movement of the medical device connected to the grip is reliably avoided. The applicant is directed to review fig. 2 as well as col. 8, lines 17-20.
Regarding claim 13, fig. 5 of Byrd teaches a single printed circuit board (80) disposed in the handle housing. See fig. 5.
Regarding claim 14, fig. 5 of Byrd depicts that the single PCB is relatively narrower in axial cross section than the width of an inner perimeter of the upper generally tubular section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Byrd and Hampe are not combinable. The applicant’s reasoning is that there is no motivation to modify the gripping surface of Byrd to be more like the gripping surface of Hampe because it would require narrowing an upper portion or widening a lower portion of Byrd. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The motivation is provided by Hampe. “simple grasping of the grip 1 is possible and also a slipping off of the hand of the operator during a movement of the medical device 2 connected to the grip 1 is reliably avoided.”
Additionally, the housing 50 of Byrd is described as “substantially cylindrically shaped” (col. 5, line 67) not strictly cylindrical. Hampe does have a narrower portion in the upper section (see area near line of 4 in fig. 2). Pertaining to applicant’s comments of the rotatable camera of Byrd accommodated in the grip, if applicant is suggesting that there is no physical room in Byrd for a narrow portion, the examiner disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill could put a narrow portion on the housing 50 of Byrd. Additionally, fig. 5 of Byrd even shows a substantial clearance between the camera 22 and the outer wall 50.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights