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 .
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 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.
Status of the Claims
The current office action is made responsive to claims filed 01/20/2026.
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18, and 20.
Acknowledgement is made to the cancellation of claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 19.
Any claims listed above as cancelled have sufficiently overcome any rejections set forth in any of the prior office actions.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are pending. A complete action on the merits appears below.
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 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20180242868 A1) in view of Nierenberg (US 20140012151 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen teaches a system for visualizing multiple electrogram signals sensed by multiple electrodes of a multi-electrode catheter (Abstract, [0039]), comprising:
one or more processors ([0035]); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions ([0051]), which when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive multiple electrogram signals sensed by multiple electrodes of a multi- electrode catheter in a heart of a patient ([0049] teaches the ECG module as enabling the processor to acquire and analyze EP signals received by the electrodes [0009] and [0039] teach these signals as being received while the electrodes of the catheter are located within the heart of the patient);
determine which of the multiple electrodes are in contact with cardiac tissue and which of the electrodes are not in contact with cardiac tissue ([0024] teaches the processor as processing the ECG signals to detect the occurrence of a predefined signal feature in the acquired signals [0017] teaches the predefined signal feature as being a measurement of the electrode touching the tissue of the heart); and
present to a user, on a display, using a single screen of a graphical user interface (GUI) ([0009], [0021]):
the electrodes determined to be in contact with cardiac tissue using a first graphical feature ([0017] teaches the predefined signal feature as being a measurement of the electrode touching the tissue and [0035]- [0036] teaches that upon detection of the occurrence of the predefined signal feature in the signal from one of the electrodes, the processor may modify a visual feature of the icon representing that electrode);
the electrodes determined not to be in contact with cardiac tissue using a second graphical feature different from the first graphical feature ([0017] teaches the predefined signal feature as being a measurement of the electrode touching the tissue and [0035]- [0036] teaches that upon detection of the occurrence of the predefined signal feature in the signal from one of the electrodes, the processor may modify a visual feature of the icon representing that electrode, therefore, those electrode which do not have the predefined signal feature of tissue contact will be displayed with a different visual feature from those which do have the predefined signal feature of tissue contact);
one or more real-time electrogram signals from the electrodes determined to be in contact with cardiac tissue plotted using a line style ([0049], [0054]- [0056] teach the display screen as having a first portion which displays a distal end of the lasso catheter and icons representing the electrodes and a second portion which displays the signals from the electrodes); and
one or more real-time electrogram signals from the electrodes determined not to be in contact with cardiac tissue plotted using a line style ([0049], [0054]- [0056] teach the display screen as having a first portion which displays a distal end of the lasso catheter and icons representing the electrodes and a second portion which displays the signals from the electrodes); and
performing ablation using one or more of the electrodes ([0048]) depicted using the first graphical feature.
However, Cohen fails to teach the electrogram signals from the electrodes determined to be in contact with cardiac tissue as being plotted using a first line style and the electrogram signals from the electrodes determined not to be in contact with cardiac tissue as being plotted using a second line style different from the first line style.
Nierenberg teaches a method and system for displaying electrical activity of electrodes attached to a patient (Abstract). The electrical activity being displayed as individually plotted lines (Fig. 1; EEG report 100).
Nierenberg further teaches the first and second graphical features as being plotted with a first line style and a second line style which is distinctive from the first line style in order to allow a physician or technician to easily and visually distinguish between the two data sets ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of two differing line styles corresponding to separate graphical features ([0063]), as is taught by Nierenberg into the individually plotted electrical activity lines of the electrodes ([0045], [0048]) taught by He in order to provide the benefit of allowing a physician or technician to easily and visually distinguish between two data sets ([0063]), as is taught by Nierenberg.
Regarding claim 4, Cohen teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions further cause the one or more processors to automatically update the presentation of the electrogram signals from the electrodes in contact with cardiac tissue based on determining a level of physical contact of each electrode with tissue ([0049], [0058]- [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Cohen further teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions further cause the one or more processors to present the multiple electrodes on a graphical illustration of the catheter ([0055]).
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 13, the recited methods are considered inherent in the ordinary use of the device as described by the Cohen as modified in claim 1, 4, and 6.
Regarding claim 15, 18, and 20, the recited computer-readable storage medium is taught by the current rejection of Cohen as modified in claim 1, 4, and 6.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20180242868 A1) in view of Nierenberg (US 20140012151 A1) and Maskara (US 2014031629 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cohen as modified teaches the system according to claim 1.
Cohen further teaches distinguishing the information from the electrodes which contact tissue from those which do not ([0017], [0035]- [0036]).
However, Cohen fails to teach the system wherein the plurality of instructions further cause the one or more processors to visualize the electrogram signals from the electrodes determined not to be in contact with cardiac tissue by partially blanking the electrogram signals from the electrodes determined not to be in contact with cardiac tissue.
Maskara teaches a method and system for mapping anatomical structures by sensing activation signals of intrinsic physiological activity with a plurality of electrodes (Abstract). During this sensing of electrical activity, activation signals and ambient electrical activity away from the sensor may both be sensed ([0004]). In order to provide more accurate location information, a manner of filtering the activation signal from the ambient electrical activity, i.e. far-field activations, is provided ([0013]).
Maskara further teaches this filtering out of the non-active electrode signals from the active electrode signals by blanking the signals that are identified as non-active, specifically referred to as far-field activations ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of blanking non-active signals, as is taught by Maskara, into the system of Cohen, so as to provide a more accurate tissue therapy to the patient, as is taught by Maskara.
Regarding claim 10, the recited methods are considered inherent in the ordinary use of the device as described by the Cohen as modified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the recited computer-readable storage medium is taught by the current rejection of Cohen as modified in claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Specifically, applicant’s arguments of the limitations that art not taught by the He reference are moot in view of the new rejections under Cohen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY REGAN LANCASTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-4 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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/L.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3794