DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species C of Group I, Species A of Group II, Species A of Group III, Species B of Group IV, readable on claims 23-41 in the reply filed on 8/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 23-41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Wang (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0170846).
In regard to claim 23, Wang discloses an illumination control system (102,201, Fig. 1) for a medical imaging device (100), the illumination control system comprising:
a control device (102,201) communicatively coupleable to a plurality of illumination devices (20A,20B) positioned at a distal end of the medical imaging device (Fig. 1), the control device having a processor configured to execute instructions to perform operations (Par. 40), including:
receiving an image of a site from the medical imaging device, wherein the image is captured by the medical imaging device as light is emitted by the plurality of illumination devices, at a first emitted light intensity, onto a plurality of regions of the site to illuminate the plurality of regions (Par. 40);
analyzing the image to determine an illumination intensity of each of the plurality of regions in the image ; (Par. 40)
for a first region of the plurality of regions, determining a difference from a target illumination intensity based on the illumination intensity determined for the first region (Par. 40, via detecting over or under exposure of the region associated with LED (20A)); and
causing a first illumination device, of the plurality of illumination devices, configured to emit the light onto the first region to vary an intensity of the light emitted from the first emitted light intensity to a second emitted light intensity based on the difference (Par. 40, via detecting over or under exposure of the region associated with LED (20A)).
In regard to claim 24, Wang teaches wherein the difference is a first difference, the target illumination intensity is a first target illumination intensity (Par. 40), and the operations further include:
for a second region of the plurality of regions, determining a second difference from a second target illumination intensity based on the illumination intensity determined for the second region (Par. 40, via detecting over or under exposure of the region associated with LED (20B)); and
causing a second illumination device, of the plurality of illumination devices, configured to emit the light onto the second region to vary an intensity of the light emitted from the first emitted light intensity to a third emitted light intensity based on the second difference (Par. 40, via detecting over or under exposure of the region associated with LED (20A)).
In regard to claim 25, Wang teaches wherein the third emitted light intensity is different than the second emitted light intensity (the second and third emitted light intensities are determined independent of each other and therefore could be different, Par. 40).
In regard to claim 26, Wang teaches wherein one of the third emitted light intensity or the second emitted light intensity is higher than the first emitted light intensity, and wherein the other of the third emitted light intensity or the second emitted light intensity is lower than the first emitted light intensity (the second and third emitted light intensities are determined independent of each other and therefore are able to have different intensities from each other, Par. 40).
In regard to claim 27, Wang teaches wherein both of the third emitted light intensity and the second emitted light intensity are one of higher or lower than the first emitted light intensity (the second and/or third light intensity can be higher or lower than the first emitted light intensity if over or under exposure is detected).
In regard to claim 28, Wang teaches wherein one or more characteristics of the light, including an intensity of the light, emitted by each of the plurality of illumination devices are independently controllable such that only the first illumination device, of the plurality of illumination devices, is caused to emit the light at the second emitted light intensity (via independently controlling the intensity of LEDS 20A, 20B, Par. 40).
In regard to claim 29, Wang teaches wherein, when the illumination intensity determined for the first region is lower than the target illumination intensity, the second emitted light intensity is higher than the first emitted light intensity to cause the first region to brighten (Par. 40, when underexposure is detected the intensity of light from LED (20A) would be increased).
In regard to claim 30, Wang teaches wherein, when the illumination intensity determined for the first region is higher than the target illumination intensity, the second emitted light intensity is lower than the first emitted light intensity to cause the first region to darken (Par. 40, when overexposure is detected the intensity of light from LED (20A) would be decreased).
In regard to claim 31, Wang teaches wherein the operations further include:
determining the target illumination intensity based on the illumination intensity determined for each of the plurality of regions (Par. 40).
In regard to claim 32, Wang teaches wherein, for the first region of the plurality of regions, determining the difference from the target illumination intensity based on the illumination intensity determined for the first region includes:determining the difference is above a threshold (Par. 40).
In regard to claim 33, Wang teaches wherein the plurality of regions of the site include the first region and a second region, and wherein the first region and the second region overlap (Par. 15).
In regard to claim 34, Wang discloses an illumination system (102,201, Fig. 1) for a medical imaging device (100), comprising:
a plurality of illumination devices (20A,20B) positioned at a distal end of the medical imaging device and configured to emit light onto a site, wherein the light emitted from each illumination device of the plurality of illumination devices illuminates a corresponding region of a plurality of regions of the site (Fig. 1, Par. 40); and
a control device (102,201) communicatively coupled to the plurality of illumination devices, and having a processor configured to execute instructions to perform operations to provide illumination control for the medical imaging device (Par. 40), the operations including:
causing the plurality of illumination devices to emit the light onto the site (Par. 40);
receiving an image of the site captured by the medical imaging device as the plurality of illumination devices are emitting the light (Par. 40);
determining an illumination intensity of each region of the plurality of regions of the site in the image (Par. 40);
for one or more regions of the plurality of regions, determining a difference from a target illumination intensity based on the illumination intensity determined for the one or more regions (Par. 40, via detecting over or under exposure of the region associated with LED (20A)); and
varying an intensity of the light emitted by one or more illumination devices, of the plurality of illumination devices, configured to emit the light onto the one or more regions, wherein the intensity of the light is varied based on the difference (Par. 40, via detecting over or under exposure of the region associated with LED (20A)).
In regard to claim 35, Wang teaches wherein the operations further include:
determining the target illumination intensity based on the illumination intensity determined for each of the plurality of regions (Par. 40, via detecting over or under exposure of the region associated with LED (20A) or LED (20B)).
In regard to claim 36, Wang teaches wherein determining the difference from the target illumination intensity based on the illumination intensity determined for the one or more regions comprises:
determining at least one region of the one or more regions is of higher illumination intensity than the target illumination intensity, causing the at least one region to appear brighter in the image (via determining overexposure of the region using LED (20A), Par. 40).
In regard to claim 37, Wang teaches wherein varying the intensity of the light emitted by the one or more illumination devices comprises:
decreasing the intensity of the light emitted by at least one illumination device, of the one or more illumination devices, configured to emit the light onto the at least one region to darken the at least one region (via decreasing the intensity of light from LED (20A) when overexposure is determined, Par. 40).
In regard to claim 38, Wang teaches wherein determining the difference from the target illumination intensity based on the illumination intensity determined for the one or more regions comprises:
determining at least one region of the one or more regions is of lower illumination intensity than the target illumination intensity, causing the at least one region to appear darker in the image (via determining underexposure of the region using LED (20A), Par. 40).
In regard to claim 39, Wang teaches wherein varying the intensity of the light emitted by the one or more illumination devices comprises:
increasing the intensity of the light emitted by at least one illumination device, of the one or more illumination devices, configured to emit the light onto the at least one region to brighten the at least one region (via decreasing the intensity of light from LED (20A) when overexposure is determined, Par. 40).
In regard to claim 40, Wang teaches wherein the one or more regions of the plurality of regions include a first region and a second region, and wherein the varying of the intensity of the light emitted reduces a difference in the illumination intensity of the first region relative to the second region (Par. 40, via adjusting the intensity of light of each LED (20A,20B) to be within a threshold range).
In regard to claim 41, Wang teaches wherein the plurality of illumination devices include a plurality of light-emitting diodes (20A,20B, Fig. 1).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 23-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,277,855 (hereinafter ‘855). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-18 of ‘855 contain all of the features of the claims of the current application with only minor differences in claim language.
Claims 23-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,944,274 (hereinafter ‘274). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-20 of ‘274 contain all of the features of the claims of the current application with only minor differences in claim language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN N HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-5pm (PST).
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795 September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights