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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09SEP2025, which incorporates the amendments made in the After Final Response filed 16JUN2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendments and remarks filed on 09SEP2025 have been entered and considered.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5-6, & 10 have been amended.
Claims 11-14 have been added.
No new matter has been added. Support for claim 1 is found on Page 5 Lines 10-13 & Page 10 lines 3-8. Support for claims 11-13 is found on Page 11 Lines 3-12. Support is found for claim 14 on Page 14 Lines 7-10.
Claims 1-14 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed 09SEP2025 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are found to obviate the rejection. Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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.
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, & 12-14 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), and M. 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},
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, and a selection of a section of the 3D anatomical map, the section comprising one or more given vectors among the multiple wave vectors, produce a two-dimensional (2D) projection of the section, comprising the one or more given vectors, 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.
Govari in combination with Dubois does not disclose the one or more given vectors being displayed larger than remaining vectors of the multiple wave vectors. Mase in a similar field of endeavor of automatic reconstruction of activation and velocity maps from electro-anatomic data teaches the one or more given vectors being displayed 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.
Regarding claims 2 & 7, claims 1 & 6 are obvious over the combination of Govari, Dubois, and Mase. 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 and Mase 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, Dubois, and Mase. 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, Dubois, and Mase. 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, Dubois, and Mase. Govari further discloses wherein the 2D projection comprises the one or more given vectors and a background, which comprises the 2D projection of one or more anatomical features of the section of the 3D anatomical map, and wherein the processor is configured to alter the background, so as to increase a contrast between the wave vectors and the background (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, Dubois, and Mase. Govari in combination with Mase does 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 and Mase 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, Dubois, and Mase. Neither Govari nor Mase teach 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, Dubois, and Mase. Govari in combination with Mase does not disclose wherein, the processor is further configured to present on the display only the one or more given 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 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 Mase and Dubois with wherein, the processor is further configured to present on the display only the one or more given 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.
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), M. 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}, and Fuimaono et al. (US Patent No. 9668704).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Govari, Dubois, and Mase. Govari, Dubois, and Mase 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 and Mase 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 M-F 9:30-4:30.
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 M-F 9:30-4:30. 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
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796