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
The amendments and remarks filed on 04MAY2026 have been entered and considered.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10, & 14 have been amended.
Claims 15-19 have been added.
Claims 1-19 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 29JAN2026 & 31MAR2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04MAY2026 regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and have been found to be not persuasive. Parts deemed not persuasive discussed below:
Applicant states (see Page 7 of the Remarks):
Govari "does not disclose wherein the three-dimensional (3D) anatomical map comprises multiple wave vectors indicative of electrical signals propagating over a tissue surface" (Applicant agrees with Examiner on this important matter).Dubois fails to cure the deficiencies of Govari. Instead, Dubois discloses at para. [0045] a method for performing conduction velocity mapping having a selection step 52 of for selecting a region of interest (ROI) for a given node ni described at para. [0033]. The selection of the ROI does not include receiving "a selection of a section of the 3D anatomical map, the section comprising one or more given vectors among the multiple wave vectors and a portion of the tissue surface." Furthermore, the ROI of Dubois does not comprise "one or more given vectors among the multiple wave vectors and a portion of the tissue surface," as recited by amended Claim 1, since the ROI is selected to "enable estimation of a realistic CV vector field" before vectors have been determined. Dubois at [0046]. The vectors are only determined at steps 56 and 58 after selection of the ROI at step 52. Specifically, Dubois discloses selection of the ROI, followed by orthogonal projection of the region of interest for the given node, estimation of a two-dimensional conduction velocity vector for the given node, and then a two-dimensional conduction velocity vector for the given node. Dubois at [0005], [0052], [0053], [0057], and [0058]. Since Dubois does not disclose the selection of the section of a 3D anatomical map as recited in Claim 1, Dubois cannot disclose a 2D projection of the section and similarly cannot disclose a display of the 2D projection overlaid on the 3D anatomical map. It is also noted that Dubois discloses at FIG. 2, block 52 and the related discussion at para. [0048], that the ROI is algorithmically and automatically selected using spatial and temporal factors as described by Dubois at paras. [0045] and [0048] (as opposed to new Claim 15 which recites that "the section of the 3D anatomical map is user selectable").
However, the argument is not persuasive because the applicant is arguing citations from Dubois that are not relied upon for the limitation. Dubois is cited in (Dubois ¶0061 “A purpose of the method 100 is to estimate the divergence and curl functions from the CV vector field to provide additional information associated with wave fronts propagating across the cardiac surface.”; ¶0038 “the computed speed and direction in the velocity vector for a given node are a combination of activation wave front velocities from the entire local myocardium mass within the region of such given node. The resulting conduction velocity map provides a local vector for each of the nodes that includes speed and/or propagation direction for the nodes in each region of interest over one or more time intervals. The conduction velocity map thus provides an efficient estimate of propagation pattern.”). Further, The examiner maintains that the applicant should not argue references separately when used in combination since Govari has been cited in ¶0052-¶0055 to discuss receiving the 3D map that contains vectors. Dubois is used to illustrate that the anatomical map can contain multiple wave vectors, which is not highlighted in Govari. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the use of multiple wave vectors as applied to an anatomical mapping would allow a practitioner to map multiple forms of data as it generate for an organ of interest such as electrical activity across a heart versus the fluctuating temperatures. Therefore, the examiner maintains that Govari in view of Dubois teaches the claim limitations as detailed below.
Applicant states (see Pages 8-10 of the Remarks):
Applicant's FIG. 2B as Originally Filed In the display shown in Applicant's FIG. 2B, the 2D projection 77 is overlaid on 3D anatomical map 50, which allows a physician to focus on the display of one map, namely the display of 3D anatomical map 50, and simultaneously see 2D projection 77 in context of the anatomical map 50. Since 2D projection 77 is overlaid on 3D anatomical map 50, there is no need for the physician to divert his visual focus between different maps and make mental interpretations about how the information in one map pertains to information in another map. Additionally, the display of 2D projection 77 overlaid on 3D anatomical map 50 provides a physician with two different types of graphical information that the physician can visualize by looking at one location without changing the focus of the physician's eyes. 3D anatomical map 50 provides 3D graphical information and 2D projection 77 provides 2D graphical information overlaid on anatomical map 50.[These two different types of graphical information provide information in different formats that the physician's brain processes and interprets differently. Since the 2D graphical information is overlaid on the 3D graphical information, the physician immediately understands spatial relationship between 3D anatomical map 50 and 2D projection 77 simultaneously with processing both the 3D graphical information of 3D anatomical map 50 and the 2D graphical information of 2D projected map 77. As shown in Applicant's FIG. 2B, reproduced above, the background 62 of 2D projection 77 (which includes a 2D projection of a portion of the background of 3D anatomical map 50) and vectors 55 can each be displayed using different selectable characteristics. To illustrate, FIG. 2B shows background 62 displayed with blurred characteristics and vectors 55 being emphasized. Since 2D projection 77 is overlaid on 3D anatomical map 50, the emphasized vectors 55 are easily visualized and seen within the context of 3D anatomical map 50 in one glance. Fig. 4 of Masè does not disclose a display of a 2D projection overlaid on the 3D anatomical map.
Fig. 4 of Masè In contrast, Fig. 4 taught by Masè is reproduced above and shows a "small inset on the right of the figure displays a zoom of the atrial region inside the box." In Fig. 4, Masè shows two separate 3D maps, including a reconstructed activation map and a separate inset. The inset is not overlaid on the activation map. Rather, the inset is displayed off to the right of the figure and detached from the activation map. The inset is not a projected 2D map. Rather, it is merely a zoomed view of portion of the activation map that is denoted by a box. Since the small inset is not overlaid on the reconstructed activation map, Masè does not and would not show overlaid different features of the inset and reconstructed activation map (such as vectors or background) emphasized relative to each other, in the same context, that can be easily visualized in one glance.
However, the argument is not persuasive as the claims only require the 2D vectors displayed over a 3D anatomical map where selected vectors can be displayed larger in the same visualization page. The examiner maintains that the zoomed in view of Mase Figure 4 which displays a section of vector arrows on the anatomical map represents the claim limitations as the zoomed in window is still presented with the original map. This would achieve the same goal as described by the applicant for providing an ease of visualization. Therefore, the examiner maintains that under the broadest reasonable interpretation the references teach the claim limitations as they are claimed.
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 5, 8, 10, 12, & 14 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 claim 5:
The limitation “alter the portion of the tissue surface” is unclear because the processor appears to alter a displayed representation/background of the tissue surface, not the tissue surface itself. The specification describes altering, blurring, eliminating, or changing the background of the 2D projection to increase contrast ¶0022, ¶0048–¶0053, ¶0064. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as changing the background to increase a contrast in the 2D projection.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim recites “producing” the 2D projection is recited as comprising “presenting” the 2D projection, while claim 6 separately recites producing and presenting as distinct method steps. It is unclear if this is new steps being presented in claim 8 or a continuation of the producing and presenting steps of claim 6. For the purpose of examination, this is being interpreted as new steps for producing and presenting.
Regarding Claim 10:
The limitation “alter the portion of the tissue surface” is unclear because the processor appears to alter a displayed representation/background of the tissue surface, not the tissue surface itself. The specification describes altering, blurring, eliminating, or changing the background of the 2D projection to increase contrast ¶0022, ¶0048–¶0053, ¶0064. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as changing the background to increase a contrast in the 2D projection.
Regarding Claim 12:
The term “similar” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “similar” is a relative term that is not defined by the specification and therefore would render measured or calculated properties of the tissue indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting the term similar as meaning in the same tissue area.
Regarding Claim 14:
The limitation “present on the display only the one or more given vectors of the multiple wave vectors when the 2D projection is overlaid on the 3D anatomical map” seems to be inconsistent with claim 1’s limitation of “the one or more given vectors [are] displayed larger than remaining vectors of the multiple wave vectors,” which seems to imply that remaining vectors are displayed. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as meaning only one vector is displayed once selected from the displayed plurality of vectors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a system and therefore is a product.
Claim 6 recites a method and therefore a process.
Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1 & 6 recite limitations of “receive a three-dimensional (3D) anatomical map comprising multiple wave vectors indicative of electrical signals propagating over a tissue surface,”; “receive a selection of a section of the 3D anatomical map, the section comprising one or more given vectors among the multiple wave vectors and a portion of the tissue surface”; and “ The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind using the mental process of receiving information except for the recitation of “which is a mathematical concept of producing 2D projections of vectors. Claim 1 recites “processor”, “memory storing instructions”, and “display”. Other than reciting that “a processing circuitry” and “memory storing instructions” are performing these tasks, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind or being considered as methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that the sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states that the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. For example, aside from the recitations of “a processing circuitry”, “display”, and “memory storing instructions” language, the claim encompasses the user analyzing physiological signals to map onto a display in response to received signals.
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claims recite “display”, “processor”, and “a memory storing instructions ” to perform the abstract steps. These components read on a computer implemented system and method and are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor, performing a generic computer function of processing data. The processor, display, and memory are nothing more than parts of generic computer (see [0026], [0038]) and displaying step “present on the display, the 2D projection overlaid on the 3D anatomical map is nothing more than an insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. As stated previously, the claims recite “display”, “processor”, and “a memory storing instructions ” to perform the abstract steps. These components read on a computer implemented system and method and are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor, performing a generic computer function of processing data. The processor, display, and memory are nothing more than parts of generic computer (see [0026], [0038]) and displaying step “present on the display, the 2D projection overlaid on the 3D anatomical map is nothing more than an insignificant post-solution activity.
Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim, as a whole, amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, a conclusion that the generic computer functions merely being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Dependent claims 2-5, & 7-19 further limit the abstract idea already indicated in independent claims 1 and 6 and they are ineligible for the same reasons provided for claims 1 and 6 above.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus they are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-10, & 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govari et al (US Publication No. 20150112149; Previously Cited) in view of Dubois et al. (US Publication No. 20180325400., Previously Cited)
Regarding claims 1 & 6, Govari discloses a system (Govari Figure 1 part 12 showing the general apparatus), comprising: a display (Govari Figure 1 part 62 showing the screen used to display information; ¶0052 “FIG. 3A is a schematic diagram illustrating a temperature distribution in the vicinity of distal end 22, as displayed on screen 62,”); a processor (Govari Figure 1 part 46; ¶0040 “Apparatus 12 is controlled by a system processor 46, which is located in an operating console 48 of the apparatus.”; ¶0041-¶0043), a memory storing instructions (Govari ¶0042 “a memory 50, which has a number of modules used by the processor to operate the apparatus.”) that, when executed by the processor are configured to cause the processor to: receive a three- dimensional (3D) anatomical map comprising vectors, receive a selection of a section of the 3D anatomical map, the section comprising one or more given vectors among the multiple wave vectors, and a portion of the tissue surface produce a two-dimensional (2D) projection of the section, comprising the one or more given vectors and the portion of the tissue surface, and present on the display, the 2D projection overlaid on the 3D anatomical map (Govari ¶0052-¶0055).
Govari does not disclose wherein the three- dimensional (3D) anatomical map comprises multiple wave vectors indicative of electrical signals propagating over a tissue surface. Dubois in a similar field of endeavor of cardiac mapping teaches wherein the three- dimensional (3D) anatomical map comprises multiple wave vectors indicative of electrical signals propagating over a tissue surface (Dubois ¶0061 “A purpose of the method 100 is to estimate the divergence and curl functions from the CV vector field to provide additional information associated with wave fronts propagating across the cardiac surface.”; ¶0038 “the computed speed and direction in the velocity vector for a given node are a combination of activation wave front velocities from the entire local myocardium mass within the region of such given node. The resulting conduction velocity map provides a local vector for each of the nodes that includes speed and/or propagation direction for the nodes in each region of interest over one or more time intervals. The conduction velocity map thus provides an efficient estimate of propagation pattern.”). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to modify Govari’s mapping device with a three- dimensional (3D) anatomical map that comprises multiple wave vectors indicative of electrical signals propagating over a tissue surface, as taught by Dubois, for the purpose of tracking the ablation procedure.
Regarding claims 2 & 7, claims 1 & 6 are obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari further discloses wherein the 3D anatomical map comprises a map of at least a portion of a heart (Govari ¶0041 “The track of distal end 22 is typically displayed on a three-dimensional representation 60 of the heart of patient 18 on a screen 62.”).
Govari does not disclose wherein the multiple wave vectors comprise wave vectors indicative of electrical signals propagating over a surface of the heart. Dubois teaches wherein the multiple wave vectors comprise wave vectors indicative of electrical signals propagating over a surface of the heart (Dubois ¶0061 “A purpose of the method 100 is to estimate the divergence and curl functions from the CV vector field to provide additional information associated with wave fronts propagating across the cardiac surface.”; ¶0038 “the computed speed and direction in the velocity vector for a given node are a combination of activation wave front velocities from the entire local myocardium mass within the region of such given node. The resulting conduction velocity map provides a local vector for each of the nodes that includes speed and/or propagation direction for the nodes in each region of interest over one or more time intervals. The conduction velocity map thus provides an efficient estimate of propagation pattern.”). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to modify the mapping device of Govari combined with Dubois with a three- dimensional (3D) anatomical map that comprises multiple wave vectors indicative of electrical signals propagating over a tissue surface, as taught by Dubois, for the purpose of tracking the ablation procedure.
Regarding claims 3 & 8, claims 1 & 6 are obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari further discloses wherein the 3D anatomical map has a first magnification, and wherein the processor is configured to present the 2D projection at a second magnification, different from the first magnification (Govari ¶0052-¶0055; ¶0055 “By way of example, in the projection assumed herein a diameter of an angular circle is in direct proportion to the angle it represents, so that circles 112, 116, and 118 have diameters in the ratio of 3:2:1.”).
Regarding claims 4 & 9, claims 1 & 6 are obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari further discloses wherein the processor is configured to present the 2D projection overlaid on the 3D anatomical map at a position of the section (Govari ¶0052-¶0053).
Regarding claims 5 & 10, claims 1 & 6 are obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari further discloses and wherein the processor is configured to alter the portion of the tissue surface, so as to increase a contrast between tone or more given vectors and the portion of the tissue surface (Govari ¶0052-¶0055 describing the alterations that can be made in the graphical display; ¶0058 “For a different case, combined force-temperature map 64B also displays the temperature distribution and the force. In both maps the force is displayed as an arrow, and a color of the arrow is selected so that the arrow is easily differentiated from the temperature distribution.”; ¶0060).
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari 0does not further disclose wherein the 3D anatomical map comprises a plurality of clusters, each cluster being indicative of data points comprising similar measured or calculated properties of the tissue. Dubois further teaches wherein the 3D anatomical map comprises a plurality of clusters, each cluster being indicative of data points comprising similar measured or calculated properties of the tissue. (Dubois ¶0036 “ At 18, a conduction velocity map is generated. The conduction velocity map is generated by computing a velocity vector based on the computed activation time for nodes distributed across one or more regions of interest, such as any sized area up to the entire surface (of the heart). “). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to modify the mapping device of Govari in combination with Dubois with methods wherein the 3D anatomical map comprises a plurality of clusters, each cluster being indicative of data points comprising similar measured or calculated properties of the tissue, as taught by Dubois, for the purpose of simplifying the tracking of the ablation procedure.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari does not disclose wherein the 3D anatomical map comprises a portion indicative of an ablation line. Dubois further teaches wherein the 3D anatomical map comprises a portion indicative of an ablation line. (Dubois Figure 8 showing the ablation areas in the anatomical mapping). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to modify Govari’s mapping device with 3D anatomical map comprising a portion indicative of an ablation line, as taught by Dubois, for the purpose of tracking the ablation procedure.
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari does not disclose wherein, the processor is further configured to present on the display only the one or more given vectors of the multiple wave vectors when the 2D projection is overlaid on the 3D anatomical map. Dubois further teaches wherein; the processor is further configured to present on the display only the one or more given vectors of the multiple wave vectors when the 2D projection is overlaid on the 3D anatomical map. (Dubois ¶0097 “FIGS. 5-13 depict examples of GUI 200 that include various output graphical maps that can be generated (e.g., by mapping system 162) to visual electrophysiological information across the surface of a cardiac envelope (e.g., the heart) for different user settings…Buttons 214, 216 and 218 provide for selectively displaying maps relating to cardiac activation, including an activation time map (via button 214), a propagation pattern map (via button 216) and a speed map (via button 218).”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to modify the mapping device of Govari combined with Dubois with wherein, the processor is further configured to present on the display only the one or more given vectors of the multiple wave vectors when the 2D projection is overlaid on the 3D anatomical map, as taught by Dubois, for the purpose of organizing the mapping data for simplified analysis.
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari further discloses wherein the section of the 3D anatomical map is user selectable. (Govari ¶0052-¶0055).
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari further discloses wherein the 2D projection is overlaid on the 3D anatomical map at an original position of the section within the 3D anatomical map. (Govari ¶0052-¶0055).
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Govari in view of Dubois. Govari does not disclose wherein the anatomical map further includes objects indicative of measurements associated with anatomical features of the 3D anatomical map. Dubois further teaches wherein the anatomical map further includes objects indicative of measurements associated with anatomical features of the 3D anatomical map. (Dubois ¶0061 “A purpose of the method 100 is to estimate the divergence and curl functions from the CV vector field to provide additional information associated with wave fronts propagating across the cardiac surface.”; ¶0038 “the computed speed and direction in the velocity vector for a given node are a combination of activation wave front velocities from the entire local myocardium mass within the region of such given node. The resulting conduction velocity map provides a local vector for each of the nodes that includes speed and/or propagation direction for the nodes in each region of interest over one or more time intervals. The conduction velocity map thus provides an efficient estimate of propagation pattern.”). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to modify Govari’s mapping device with wherein the anatomical map further includes objects indicative of measurements associated with anatomical features of the 3D anatomical map, as taught by Dubois, for the purpose of tracking the ablation procedure.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govari et al (US Publication No. 20150112149; Previously Cited) in view of Dubois et al. (US Publication No. 20180325400; Previously Cited) as applied to claims 1 & 6 above, and further in view of Masè et al "Automatic reconstruction of activation and velocity maps from electro-anatomic data by radial basis functions," 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2010, pp. 2608-2611, doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5626616. keywords: {Interpolation;Accuracy;Estimation;Surface reconstruction;Mathematical model;Cardiology;Surface waves; Previously Cited).
Regarding claims 18-19, claims 1 & 6 are obvious over the combination of Govari and Dubois. Neither Govari nor Dubois teaches wherein the one or more given vectors are presented on the display larger than remaining vectors of the multiple wave vectors . Mase in a similar field of endeavor electroanatomical mapping wherein the one or more given vectors are presented on the display larger than remaining vectors of the multiple wave vectors. (Mase Figure 4 “Fig. 4. Posterior view of a right atrial reconstructed activation map with superimposed normalized velocity vector field in a patient under atrial pacing. The small inset on the right of the figure displays a zoom of the atrial region inside the box, evidencing the normal orientation of velocity vectors with respect to isochrone lines.”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to modify the mapping device of Govari combined with Dubois with a three- dimensional (3D) anatomical map where the one or more given vectors being displayed larger than remaining vectors of the multiple wave vectors, as taught by Mase, for the purpose of increased visualization of data points of interest.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govari et al (US Publication No. 20150112149; Previously Cited) in view of Dubois et al. (US Publication No. 20180325400; Previously Cited) ,] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuimaono et al. (US Patent No. 9668704; Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Govari and Dubois. Govari and Dubois do not disclose wherein the 3D anatomical map comprises a first region having a first color indicative of a first voltage and a second region having a second color different from the first color indicative of a second voltage different from the first voltage. Fuimaono in a similar field of endeavor of visualizing cardiac procedure teaches wherein the 3D anatomical map comprises a first region having a first color indicative of a first voltage and a second region having a second color different from the first color indicative of a second voltage different from the first voltage (Fuimaono Column 1 Lines 48-57 “Using integrated electromagnetic sensors at the catheter point of the mapping catheter, it is possible to measure the voltage changes induced by catheter movements within the magnetic field and to calculate the position of the mapping catheter at any time with the aid of mathematical algorithms. Probing the endocardial contour of a heart chamber point by point with the mapping catheter and simultaneously detecting the electrical signals produces an electroanatomical three-dimensional map in which the electrical signals are reproduced color coded.”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to modify the mapping device of Govari combined with Dubois with wherein the 3D anatomical map comprises a first region having a first color indicative of a first voltage and a second region having a second color different from the first color indicative of a second voltage different from the first voltage, as taught by Fuimaono, for the purpose of visually organizing ablation procedure data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan Fedorky whose telephone number is 571-272-2117. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 3PM-11PM ET.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on (571) 270-3061 . 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.
/MEGAN T FEDORKY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
