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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are pending, claims 1-8, 11, and 14-16 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 9, 10, and 13 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copies have been received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 and all dependent claims thereof are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2161.01 I. 6th para states:
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. (emphasis added)
Claim 9 recites inter alia, “determining whether the default branch is a destination branch where a destination is located.” The specification is silent with respect to how the destination is known or chosen by the processor, and further silent with respect to the means by which the processor determines if the default branch is the destination branch. As such, there is not sufficient detail disclosed as to the algorithm or steps/procedures taken for the processor to determine whether the default branch is a destination branch.
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.
Claim 9 and all dependent claims thereof 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 9 has been amended to recite inter alia:
calculating a virtual attraction force according to a virtual vector of the bending part relative to the image center, a speed obtained by performing first order differentiation on the virtual vector, an acceleration obtained by performing a second order differentiation on the virtual vector and a first distance between the bending part and the image center;
It is unclear if the claim should be interpreted as:
calculating
a virtual attraction force according to a virtual vector of the bending part relative to the image center,
a speed obtained by performing first order differentiation on the virtual vector,
an acceleration obtained by performing a second order differentiation on the virtual vector and
a first distance between the bending part and the image center;
or
calculating a virtual attraction force according to
a virtual vector of the bending part relative to the image center,
a speed obtained by performing first order differentiation on the virtual vector,
an acceleration obtained by performing a second order differentiation on the virtual vector and
a first distance between the bending part and the image center;
As such the claim is indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7, this is not persuasive at least because these claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant’s arguments regarding paragraphs [0021]-[0030] and [0052]-[0060] are not persuasive at least because nothing in these arguments discusses specifically how the destination is known or chosen by the processor, or the means by which the processor determines if the default branch is the destination branch.
On page 11, Applicant argues “the destination is known or chosen by planning the default branch ahead of the navigation.” This is not persuasive at least because it does not clarify how, specifically, the destination is known or chosen, just merely asserts that it is known or chosen.
On page 11, Applicant argues “whether the default branch is the destination branch is determined based on the record generated by the path planning procedure.” This is not persuasive. Paragraphs [0052]-[0060] teach how the default branches are chosen during a path planning procedure. Paragraph [0028] refers to the default branches as ”preplanned navigation paths” indicating that the procedure discussed in paragraphs [0052]-[0060] occurs before the bronchoscope is being navigated within the lungs. Insomuch as paragraphs [0052]-[0060] do discuss creating a record of default branches, this record is created before the bronchoscope is inserted into the lungs and is not an active record kept and maintained during insertion. There is no discussion here or elsewhere of the processor using the record generated by the path planning procedure in order to determine if the default branch is the destination branch. Paragraph [0061], to which Applicant refers, does not teach processor using the record generated by the path planning procedure in order to determine if the default branch is the destination branch. Instead paragraph [0061] merely teaches the processor controls the bronchoscope to enter the nodes that were previously chosen during the path planning procedure. Paragraph [0061] ends with, “with step S215 of FIG. 2, the processing control device 12 determines the default branch that the bending part of the robotic bronchoscopy 10 currently locates at is the destination branch that the destination D locates at.” Grammatical issues aside, this disclosure does not teach the processor using the record generated by the path planning procedure in order to determine if the default branch is the destination branch. It merely reasserts that the processor somehow determines the default branch is at the destination branch.
On page 11 Applicant argues “one of ordinary skill in the art can understand that the destination is a to-be-operated or to-be-examined site, and the event record records a series of branches. That is, during the path planning process, the event record already records the location of each branching point (defined as "node" in the present application) from the destination to the origin. Further, it is well known in the art that bronchoscopy has image capturing function, and therefore, during the navigation process, the event record may be used to determine which branching point the bending part of the bronchoscopy is currently located at, thereby determining whether the bending part has reached the destination.” This is not persuasive. As set forth in MPEP 2161.01 I. 8th para, “[i]t is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. As has been set forth above and in previous office actions, there is no disclosure in the specification for the specific means by which the processor determines if the default branch is the destination branch. For example, there is no disclosure of the processor counting and recording the number of nodes as they are passed during navigation. There is no disclosure of performing any specific image analysis like optical flow or pattern matching. There is no disclosure of utilizing 3d location sensors or robot kinematics, insertion sensors, or shape sensors. There is not “sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed,” (original emphasis, MPEP 2161.01 I. 6TH para). Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandra Newton Surgan whose telephone number is (571)270-1618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm EST.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/ALEXANDRA L NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799