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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-44 are pending, claims 10-15, 18-39, and 42-44 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-9, 16-17, and 40-41 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I and Species 1, readable on claims 1-9, 16-17, and 40-41, in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 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)).
Claims 10-15, 18-39, and 42-44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and Species 2-5, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/30/2026.
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.
Claims 2-4 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, the limitation “display the plurality of sites in the first region” is not described in the specification. The specification discloses the site selection box 71 is displayed on the screen 70A is an example of a second region ([0101]). Although the main display region A1 is disclosed as a first region ([0096]), the specification does not explicitly specify the plurality of sites to be displayed in that first region. Therefore, claims 2 and 4 fail to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 2.
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 2-4 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, the limitation “the plurality of sites in the first region” is unclear with respect to the limitation “display a plurality of sites…in a second region” in claim 1. Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the plurality of sites in the second region” is unclear. It is unclear where the plurality of sites is being displayed (i.e., in second region for claim 1, or in the first region for claim 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US 2016/0000302).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses an information processing apparatus (80, figure 2) comprising: a first processor (204, figure 2), wherein the first processor is configured to acquire an image (imaging… [0045]) captured using an endoscope (50, figure 1), display the acquired image (402, figure 4) in a first region (see right side of display 400, figure 4) on a screen of a first display unit (206, figure 2), display a plurality of sites of a hollow organ (404, figure 4) as an observation target in a second region on the screen (see left side of display 400, figure 4) of the first display unit, and accept selection of one site from among the plurality of sites (accept the registration…[0062], figure 6).
Regarding claim 2, Brown further discloses the first processor is configured to detect a specific region of the hollow organ from the acquired image (each region…activated [0060] | location of the distal tip of the bronchoscope is registered simultaneously with the acquired image), and display the plurality of sites in the first region (able to display a review registration view 514, figure 12; [0086]) in a case where the specific region is detected (see 404, figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Brown further discloses the first processor displays the plurality of sites in the second region (see 404, figure 4) in a state where a site to which the detected specific region belongs is selected in advance from among the plurality of sites (navigation setup…selecting…[0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Brown further discloses in a case where a display instruction of the plurality of sites is accepted (accept registration…[062]), the first processor displays the plurality of sites (404, figure 4) in the first region (able to display a review registration view 514, figure 12; [0086]) in a state where one site is selected in advance from among the plurality of sites (navigation setup…selecting…[0056]).
Regarding claim 5, Brown further discloses the first processor displays the plurality of sites in the second region using a schema diagram (see 404, figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Brown further discloses the first processor displays the site being selected such that the site being selected is distinguishable from the other sites (check mark, figure 4 | [0060]), in the schema diagram displayed in the second region (see 404, figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Brown further discloses the second region is set in a vicinity (interpreted to mean close or nearby) of a position where a treatment tool (92, figure 4) appears within the image displayed in the first region (see location of 404 is nearby 92, figure 4 | also 92 may be moved to be closer to the location of 404 in figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Brown further discloses the first processor displays the second region in an emphasized manner during a first time in a case where selection of the site is accepted (check mark, figure 4 | [0060] | highlighted portion…pathway [0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Brown further discloses the first processor continuously accepts selection of the site after display of the plurality of sites is started (acceptable…[0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Brown further discloses the first processor is configured to detect a treatment tool from the acquired image (enables tracking...biopsy tool 102 [0051] | insert a tool [0081]), choose a plurality of treatment names (broadly interpreted as a designation of the different tools, such as displaying/marking it) corresponding to the detected treatment tool (biopsy device…or other similar tools to sample, mark and/or treat [0081] | virtual marker 512…location of a previous treatment site [0082]), display the plurality of chosen treatment names in a third region on the screen of the first display unit (location of a previous treatment site….[0082] | 3D map dynamic view 482…indicate the location [0082], figure 10 | color coded [0086] | 482 is on the top left part of the display, figure 10), accept selection of one treatment name from among the plurality of treatment names from start of the display until a third time elapses (mark may be recorded…at a later time [0080] | interpreted there to be a time limit to modify the treatment name), and stop acceptance of selection of the site while selection of the treatment name is accepted (mark may be permanently recorded…[0080]).
Regarding claim 17, Brown further discloses the first processor records information on the selected treatment name in association with information on the selected site (biopsy tool…tracking [0048] | virtual marker 512…previous treatment site [0082]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2020/0273581), in view of Brown (US 2016/0000302).
Regarding claim 40, Wolf discloses a report creation support device that supports creation of a report (post-operative report [0020]), comprising: a second processor (processor [0415]), wherein the second processor is configured to display a report creation screen (display information…[0448]) with at least an input field for a site (fields…[0448]), on a second display unit (display information [0448]), automatically input the acquired information on the site to the input field for the site (automatically generated data…[0450]), and accept correction of the automatically input information of the input field for the site (correct the error [0467]). Wolf is silent regarding acquire information on the site selected in the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Brown teaches a workstation (80, figure 2) that navigates a target through a patient’s bronchial tree (abstract). The workstation includes a user interface that guides a user through a navigation plan and is configured to present a central navigation view for assisting the user in navigating the bronchoscope through central airways toward the target (abstract).
It would have been obvious to modify the report creation support device of Wolf to be used with the information processing apparatus as taught by Brown (abstract). Doing so would provide the creation of a post operative report for the navigation procedure in Brown (fig. 3). The modified device would acquire information (analyzing surgical data obtained…[0416]; Wolf) on the site selected in the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above; Brown).
Regarding claim 41, Wolf further discloses the second processor displays the input field for the site such that the input field for the site is distinguishable from other input fields on the report creation screen (post-operative report…in various organizations and/or formats [0418]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kehat (US 2016/0000517).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 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, 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.
PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
February 21, 2026
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795