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 .
This Office action is responsive to an amendment filed February 16, 2026. Claims 43-62 are pending. Claims 1-42 have been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 2, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 43-50 & 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilboa (US 2004/0249267) in view of Adcox et al. (US 2008/0183190) (“Adcox” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 43, Gilboa discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing (i.e., software) instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (i.e., from computer 24) (see at least par 0149, 0153 & 0164), cause the one or more processors (i.e., from computer 24) (see at least par 0149, 0153 & 0164) to:
display, in an alignment mode of a graphical user interface and during alignment of a distal end of an elongate device 30 (see at least par 0025 & 0038-0039) to perform a medical procedure at a target location, first image data from a perspective corresponding to the distal end of the elongate device 30 (see at least par 0025 & 0038-0039),
PNG
media_image1.png
620
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first image data includes a target indicator 148 corresponding to the target location and an alignment indicator 140 corresponding to an expected location of the medical procedure (see at least figs. 17A-B and par 0168-0171); and,
receive a plurality of instruments (e.g., biopsy tools such as various kinds of forceps and aspiration needles, and various tools used for ablating malignant tissue that are used in context of a bronchial procedures, see par 0189 & 0191) delivered to the target location via extension from a working channel of the elongate device 30 (see at least fig. 2 and par 0025 & 0028).
Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium that fails to explicitly teach processor-executed instructions to receive a plurality of instrument trajectories indicating previous positions of an instrument delivered to the target location; and display a plurality of historical indicators corresponding to the plurality of instrument trajectories indicating the previous positions of the instrument.
However, Adcox teaches that it is known to provide processor-executed instructions to receive a plurality of instrument trajectories indicating previous positions of an instrument 14 (e.g., instrument 14 may be other surgical tools such as biopsy needles, see par 0087) delivered to the target location; and display a plurality of historical indicators (e.g., a trajectory can be automatically assigned a different color or unique numerical label. Other types of directional indicators may also be used, and different shapes, styles, sizes, and textures can be employed to differentiate among the trajectories, see par 0061) corresponding to the plurality of instrument trajectories indicating the previous positions of the instrument 14 (see at least figs. 2 & 4-5 and par 0048-0049, 0053 & 0059-0061).
Therefore, since both Gilboa and Adcox describe positioning instruments or tools such as biopsy needles under visual guidance (see at least see par 0189 & 0191 of Gilboa and par 0087 of Adcox), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa to receive a plurality of instrument trajectories indicating previous positions of an instrument delivered to the target location; and display a plurality of historical indicators corresponding to the plurality of instrument trajectories indicating the previous positions of the instrument as taught by Adcox since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Adcox) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as tracking the instantaneous position of the instrument(s) or tool(s) (see par 0059 of Adcox) to improve tissue targeting --See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 44, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 43, wherein the instrument is a needle (e.g., aspiration needles) (see at least par 0189 & 0191).
In regards to claim 45, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 43, storing (i.e., software) instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (i.e., from computer 24) (see at least par 0149, 0153 & 0164), cause the one or more processors (i.e., from computer 24) (see at least par 0149, 0153 & 0164) to:
display a first virtual global view of a patient anatomy 142 (i.e., one of axial, sagittal and anterior-posterior (AP) view); and
display a second virtual global view of the patient anatomy 142 (i.e., another one of axial, sagittal and anterior-posterior (AP) view) (see at least figs. 18A-C and par 0149, 0170-0172 & 0178).
In regards to claim 46, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 45, wherein the first virtual global view and the second virtual global view have different perspectives with a fixed offset (i.e., perpendicular), wherein rotating a perspective of the first virtual global view automatically rotates the perspective of the second virtual global view (see at least figs. 18A-C and par 0149, 0170-0172 & 0178).
In regards to claim 47, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 45, wherein the first virtual global view has a perspective automatically selected to display the instrument in-plane (i.e., inferred from the catheter tip 150) (see at least figs. 18A-B).
In regards to claim 48, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 45, wherein the first virtual global view has a perspective automatically selected to match a perspective of a fluoroscopic imaging device (see at least figs. 18A-C and par 0149, 0170-0172 & 0178).
In regards to claim 49, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 43, storing (i.e., software) instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (i.e., from computer 24) (see at least par 0149, 0153 & 0164), cause the one or more processors (i.e., from computer 24) (see at least par 0149, 0153 & 0164) to:
display, in a traversal mode of the graphical user interface and during traversal of the elongate device 30 (see at least par 0025 & 0038-0039) through an anatomical passageway, second image data from a perspective corresponding to the distal end of the elongate device 30 (see at least par 0025 & 0038-0039), wherein the second image data includes a virtual roadmap 154 and a historical path 152 of the elongate device 30 (see at least par 0025 & 0038-0039) (see at least figs. 18A-C and par 0172, 0174 & 0177-0178).
In regards to claim 50, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 49, storing (i.e., software) instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (i.e., from computer 24) (see at least par 0149, 0153 & 0164), cause the one or more processors (i.e., from computer 24) (see at least par 0149, 0153 & 0164) to:
display, in the traversal mode of the graphical user interface, a virtual global view of a patient anatomy, wherein the virtual global view includes the historical path 152 (see at least figs. 18A-C and par 0172, 0174 & 0177-0178) of the elongate device 30 (see at least par 0025 & 0038-0039).
In regards to claim 51, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 49, that fails to explicitly teach processor-executed instructions wherein different portions of the historical path are displayed with different colors, textures, shades or transparencies to indicate a purpose of each portion of the historical path or a time of each portion of the historical path. However, Adcox teaches that it is known to provide processor-executed instructions wherein different portions of the historical path are displayed with different colors or textures to indicate a time of each portion of the historical path (see at least par 0059 & 0061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa wherein different portions of the historical path are displayed with different colors or textures to indicate a time of each portion of the historical path as taught by Adcox in order to distinguish tracked and predicted trajectories so as to thereby provide directional indicator for the trajectories.
In regards to claim 52, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 49, that fails to explicitly teach a processor-executed instructions cause the one or more processors to: hide the historical path based on a manual input. However, Adcox teaches that it is known to provide a processor-executed instructions cause the one or more processors to: hide the historical path based on a manual input (e.g., through selection of appropriate input tab 120) (see at least abstract, fig. 4 and par 0056 & 0059-0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa to cause the one or more processors to: hide the historical path based on a manual input as taught by Adcox since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Adcox) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as allowing the surgeon to control various aspects of how trajectories and labels are displayed--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 53, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 49, that fails to explicitly teach a processor-executed instructions cause the one or more processors to: hide the historical path based on a manual input. However, Adcox teaches that it is known to provide a processor-executed instructions cause the one or more processors to: hide the historical path based on a manual input (e.g., through selection of appropriate input tab 120) (see at least abstract, fig. 4 and par 0056 & 0059-0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa to cause the one or more processors to: hide the historical path based on a manual input as taught by Adcox since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Adcox) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as allowing the surgeon to control various aspects of how trajectories and labels are displayed--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 59, Gilboa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 43, wherein the medical procedure is one or more of a biopsy or ablation (see at least par 0144 & 0191).
Claim(s) 54-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilboa (US 2004/0249267) in view of Adcox et al. (US 2008/0183190) (“Adcox” hereinafter) further in view of Lee et al. (WO 2015/119573) (“Lee” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 54, Gilboa as modified by Adcox discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 49, that fails to explicitly teach storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: display, in at least one of the alignment mode or the traversal mode, actuation information associated with a bend radius of the elongate device. However, Lee teaches that it is known to provide a processor-executed instructions cause the one or more processors to display, actuation information associated with a bend radius of the elongate device 72 (see at least figs. 8, 9A-C, 10A-C & 11A-C and par 0037 & 0046-0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa as modified by Adcox to cause the one or more processors to display, actuation information associated with a bend radius of the elongate device as taught by Lee since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Lee) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as helping the operator properly steer the endoscope/instrument by adjusting the twist and tilt of the endoscope/instrument--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 55, Gilboa as modified by Adcox discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 54, that explicitly fails to teach processor instruction wherein the actuation information is displayed using one or more graphical indicators including an actuation information icon. However, Lee teaches that it is known to provide processor instruction wherein the actuation information is displayed using one or more graphical indicators (74; 86, 88, 90; 104, 106) including an actuation information icon (see at least figs. 8, 9A-C, 10A-C & 11A-C and par 0037 & 0046-0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa as modified by Adcox wherein the actuation information is displayed using one or more graphical indicators including an actuation information icon of as taught by Lee since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Lee) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as helping the operator properly steer the endoscope/instrument by adjusting the twist and tilt of the endoscope/instrument--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 56, Gilboa as modified by Adcox and Lee discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 55, wherein the actuation information icon includes an alphanumeric indicator that displays a current minimum bend radius of the elongate device. However, since Lee discloses processor-executed instructions wherein the actuation information icon displays a current minimum bend radius of the elongate device (see at least figs. 8, 9A-C, 10A-C & 11A-C and par 0037 & 0046-0049) and Gilboa teaches processor instruction wherein the information is displayed using an alphanumeric indicator or message (see at least figs. 17A-B), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa as modified by Adcox and Lee instruction wherein the actuation information is displayed using one or more graphical indicators including an actuation information icon as claimed in order to provide a visual cue providing a feedback to the surgeon.
In regards to claim 57, Gilboa as modified by Adcox discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 55, that fails to explicitly teach processor-executed instructions wherein the actuation information icon includes a directional indicator that indicates a direction in which an operator should steer the elongate device to alleviate excessive bending. However, Lee teaches processor-executed instructions wherein the actuation information icon includes a directional indicator (74; 86, 88, 90; 104, 106) that indicates a direction in which an operator should steer the elongate device to alleviate excessive bending (see at least figs. 8, 9A-C, 10A-C & 11A-C and par 0037 & 0046-0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa as modified by Adcox wherein the actuation information icon includes a directional indicator (74; 86, 88, 90; 104, 106) that indicates a direction in which an operator should steer the elongate device to alleviate excessive bending as taught by Lee since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Lee) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as helping the operator properly steer the endoscope/instrument by adjusting the twist and tilt of the endoscope/instrument--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 58, Gilboa as modified by Adcox discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 55, that fails to explicitly teach processor-instructions wherein a color of the actuation information icon is dynamic to convey supplemental guidance information to an operator. However, Lee teaches processor-executed instructions wherein a color (i.e., the color of representations (74; 86, 88, 90; 104, 106)) of the actuation information icon is dynamic (“marked by usually continuous and productive movement” such that the color forming the actuation information icon moves or rotates) to convey supplemental guidance information to an operator (see at least figs. 8, 9A-C, 10A-C & 11A-C and par 0037 & 0046-0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa as modified by Adcox wherein a color of the actuation information icon is dynamic to convey supplemental guidance information to an operator as taught by Lee since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Lee) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as helping the operator properly steer the endoscope/instrument by adjusting the twist and tilt of the endoscope/instrument--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 60-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilboa (‘267) in view of Adcox et al. (US 2008/0183190) (“Adcox” hereinafter) further in view of Guthart et al. (US 2005/0200324) (“Guthart” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 60, Gilboa as modified by Adcox discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 43, that fails to explicitly teach storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: display a force indicator, wherein the force indicator includes a representation of insertion force exerted by motors or actuators used to advance the elongate device. However, Guthart teaches that it is known to provide processor-executed instructions to: display a force indicator, wherein the force indicator 209 includes a representation of insertion force exerted by motors or actuators (i.e., robotic manipulator) used to advance the elongate device (see at least abstract, figs. 2 & 8 and par 0009-0010, 0012, 0026, 0029-0031 & 0043-0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor of Gilboa as modified by Adcox with instructions to: display a force indicator, wherein the force indicator includes a representation of insertion force exerted by motors or actuators used to advance the elongate device as taught by Guthart since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Guthart) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing force information to one or more force indicators so that the Surgeon and/or Assistant(s) may be informed, for example, if excessive force is being applied by a monitored tool that may harm or cause discomfort to the Patient. (see at least par 0029 of Guthart)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 61, Gilboa as modified by Adcox discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 60, wherein the force indicator is displayed as a scrolling bar graph. However, Guthart teaches that it is known to provide processor-executed instructions wherein the force indicator is displayed as a scrolling bar graph (see at least par 0045 & 0047-0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor of Gilboa as modified by Adcox with instructions wherein the force indicator is displayed as a scrolling bar graph as taught by Guthart since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Guthart) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing force information to one or more force indicators so that the Surgeon and/or Assistant(s) may be informed, for example, if excessive force is being applied by a monitored tool that may harm or cause discomfort to the Patient. (see at least par 0029 of Guthart)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilboa (‘267) in view of Adcox et al. (US 2008/0183190) (“Adcox” hereinafter) further in view of Finley et al. (US 9,510,771) (“Finley” hereinafter).
Gilboa as modified by Adcox discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 43, storing instructions that, fails to explicitly teach processor-executed instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: change a color, shade, texture, and/or transparency of a portion of the graphical user interface (GUI) when patient movement exceeds a predetermined threshold.
However, Finley teaches that it is known to provide processor-executed instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: change a color, shade, texture, and/or transparency of a portion of the graphical user interface (GUI) when patient movement exceeds a predetermined threshold (see at least col. 6, lines 52-67, col. 7, lines 1-6, col. 8, lines 56-61 and col. 18, lines 52-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the processor-executed instructions of Gilboa as modified by Adcox, that when executed by the one or more processors thereof, cause the one or more processors to: change a color of a portion of the graphical user interface (GUI), as taught by Gilboa, so as to change a portion of the graphical user interface (GUI) when patient movement exceeds a predetermined threshold as taught by Finley since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Finley) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Gilboa) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as display a warning that the tracking accuracy may be decreased such that re-registration and scaling may be advisable (see at least col. 18, lines 52-65 of Finley)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 43-61 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached on 571-272-7540. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights