DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
*Note: For examination of claims under 35 USC 102 & 103, the claim recitations that precede with the phrase ‘in particular’ are not given any patentable weight.
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 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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by over U.S. Patent No. 4,745,526, hereafter referred to as ‘Sestak.’ Regarding claim 1, Sestak teaches a medical lighting device 10 (figures 1-4) comprising: at least one light source (41, 42, see fig. 2), which is arranged and formed in such a way to emit light (fig. 2); and at least one lens 32, which is arranged and formed in such a way to receive the emitted light at least partially and to emit it at least partially in the direction of an operating area to be illuminated (col. 2, line 65 to col. 4, line 8); wherein the at least one light source (41, 42) is arranged and formed in such a way to be movable in a direction transversely to a beam path of the light emitted by the at least one light source relative to the at least one lens (see col. 2, line 65 to col. 4, line 8, the light sources 41, 42 traverse a downwardly projected beam path of light emitted by the light source relative to the lens when the light sources rotate along with a light support 39, see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Sestak teaches the medical lighting device according to Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the at least one light source (41, 42) is arranged and formed in such a way: to be movable in a direction at least virtually perpendicular to the beam path of the light emitted by the at least one light source relative to the at least one lens (see col. 2, line 65 to col. 4, line 8, the light sources 41, 42 are rotated in a plane at least virtually perpendicular to the downwardly projected beam path of the light); and/or to be movable in a direction at least virtually parallel to an extension direction of the at least one lens relative to the at least one lens.
Regarding claim 3, Sestak teaches the medical lighting device according to Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the at least one light source (41, 42) is arranged and formed in such a way to be mechanically or electromechanically movable (via motor 35, see col. 3, line 4 to line 35), in particular displaceable, in the direction transversely to a beam path of the light emitted by the at least one light source (41, 42) relative to the at least one lens.
Regarding claim 4, Sestak teaches the medical lighting device according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the at least one light source (41, 42) is arranged or fastened on at least one light source plate 39 (figures 2-4) and the at least one light source plate 39 is arranged and formed to be movable in a direction transversely to the beam path of the light emitted by the at least one light source relative to the at least one lens (see col. 3, line 4 to col. 4, line 8, light sources 41, 42 traverse a downwardly projected beam path of light emitted by the light source relative to the lens when the light sources rotate along a light support 39, see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Sestak teaches the medical lighting device according to Claim 1 and further teaches wherein a cross section of the medical lighting device 10 is formed at least virtually round (see round or cylindrical medical device housing 26, figures 1 and 3) and the at least one light source is arranged to be mobile/movable in a radial direction of the round cross section (see col. 3, line 4 to col. 4, line 8).
Regarding claim 6, Sestak teaches the medical lighting device according to Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the at least one lens 32 is arranged, fastened or formed on at least one lens plate (see fig. 2, lens plate is the side wall of housing 26 and plate extenders 30 that hold lens 32) and the at least one lens plate is arranged and formed stationarily or fixedly relative to the at least one light
Source (see col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 19).
Regarding claim 7, Sestak teaches the medical lighting device according to Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the at least one light source comprises a plurality of light sources (41, 42) or is formed as a plurality of light sources (41, 42).
Regarding claim 10, Sestak teaches the medical lighting device according to Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the medical lighting device 10 comprises at least one screen (see figures 1-2, the sidewalls of housing 26 act as screen, wherein the at least one screen extends in particular at least parallel to the beam path (see figures 1-2).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sestak. Regarding claim 8, Sestak teaches the medical lighting device according to Claim 1. However, Sestak fails to explicitly teach that the at least one light source comprises at least one light diode or is formed as at least one light diode.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to substitute a light diode for the light source of Sestak yielding the predictable results of providing a more efficient longer lasting light source.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sestak in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0226123, hereafter referred to as ‘Hauschulte.’
Regarding claim 9, Sestak teaches the medical lighting device according to Claim 1. However, Sestak fails to explicitly teach that the least one lens comprises at least one Fresnel lens, or is formed as at least one Fresnel lens.
Hauschulte teaches a medical operating device (figures 1-7) comprising at least one lens 74 comprises at least one Fresnel lens (para. # 53), in particular a white Fresnel lens, or is formed as at least one Fresnel lens, in particular as at least one white Fresnel lens.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting device of Sestak so that the least one lens comprises at least one Fresnel lens, in particular a white Fresnel lens, or is formed as at least one Fresnel lens, in particular as at least one white Fresnel lens as taught by Hauschulte in order to efficiently transmit the light beam in the operating direction of Sestak.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Scholz and Holder each disclose light sources that are movable relative to a lens which is similar to applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M SEMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-2381. The examiner can normally be reached flexing generally from 7 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/THOMAS M SEMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
