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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/18/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 07/18/2026 has been fully considered.
Response to Amendment
This communication is filed in response to the action filed on 07/18/2026.
The claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/05/2026 on pages 7-16, under REMARKS with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejections to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO 2016/181318 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 12-15, 19 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2016/181318 A1 to SCHWARTZ et al (hereinafter “SCHWARTZ”).
As per claim 1, SCHWARTZ discloses a method comprising (a computing system and method for performing ablation; abstract; fig 2; page 14, line 28-page 15, line 29): receiving, by an evaluation engine executed by a processor (the computing system comprising computing components to perform the method including a computer processor CPU; page 19, lines 12-29; page 20, lines 5-23), a plurality of ablation points respective to cardiac tissue of a patient (the system is adapted to ablate subject tissues based on ablation parameters and is performed on cardiac tissues of the patient; page 20, lines 1-5; page 31, lines 24-30); determining, by the evaluation engine (determining via a computer based cardiac tissue model of the patients anatomy; page 31, lines 24-30), an anatomical structural classification comprising anatomical locations in two separate substantially circular rings around a left pulmonary vein (PV) and a right PV associated with the plurality of ablation points based on a structural segmentation for the cardiac tissue (a classification to determine the anatomical structures of the heart including a left and right pulmonary veins which are ablated in a circular/ring like pattern around the two pulmonary veins 48 of the right atrium of the heart; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 45, lines 6-31), and associating one or more segments of the left PV and right PV for the plurality of ablation points (in order to perform ablation the system uses a catheter probe 111 comprising at least one electrode103, acting as an ablation electrode, is moved sequentially along path 54, ablating at a plurality of locations to create a chain sub-lesions 52 (association of segments) at each location; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 45, lines 6-31); updating the plurality of ablation points, based on the anatomical structural classification of two separate substantially circular rings around the left PV and the right PV and the structural segmentation for the cardiac tissue (updating the model based on classification to determine the anatomical structures of the heart including a left and right pulmonary veins which are ablated in a circular/ring like pattern around the two pulmonary veins 48 of the right atrium of the heart; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 45, lines 6-31; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12), to account for reconnection and redo locations using a contiguity estimation (and further the system takes a contiguity value to determine if locations need to be re-mapped/redone; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 45, lines 1-23); and providing, by the evaluation engine, the anatomical locations in two separate circular rings around the left PV and the right PV associated with the updated plurality of ablation points updated based on the anatomical structural classification of two separate substantially circular rings around the left PV and the right PV and the structural segmentation for the cardiac tissue to account for reconnection and redo locations using a contiguity estimation (the model is adapted to ablate the cardiac tissue at the left and right pulmonary vein and update the ablation points based on the contiguity value used to determine re-mapping of ablation path around the left and right pulmonary veins in a substantially circular/ring like pattern; page 13, lines 5-18; page 15, lines 10-30; page 28, lines 9-29; page 29, lines 7-32; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 39, lines 12-19; page 40, lines 24-27; page 45, lines 1-31) and including the one or more associated segments for the plurality of ablation points to support treatment of the cardiac tissue (in order to perform ablation the system uses a catheter probe 111 comprising at least one electrode103, acting as an ablation electrode, is moved sequentially along path 54, ablating at a plurality of locations to create a chain sub-lesions 52 (association of segments) at each location; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 39, lines 12-19; page 40, lines 24-27; page 45, lines 1-31).
As per claim 2, SCHWARTZ discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the evaluation engine determines right and left wide area circumferential ablation locations, respective to left and right pulmonary veins of the cardiac tissue, for the plurality of ablation points (the computing system is adapted to perform ablation around the right atrium of the heart which includes the left and right pulmonary veins; page 13, lines 5-18; page 15, lines 10-30; page 28, lines 9-29; page 29, lines 7-32).
As per claim 3, SCHWARTZ discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the evaluation engine utilizes manual annotations of training data to determine of the anatomical structural classification (the computing system uses existing data from databases of anatomical data to determine anatomical structural classification using its model; page 15, lines 10-32; page 47, lines 7-17).
As per claim 4, SCHWARTZ discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the structural segmentation of the cardiac tissue comprises at least one of right posterior, right inferior, right roof, right anterior, left posterior, right inferior, right roof, left ridge, and left anterior of left and right pulmonary veins (the model includes all anatomical structures of the heart, the right atrium, which contains and includes as stated the left and right pulmonary veins and their corresponding anatomical feature/positions; page 22, lines 9-26).
As per claim 8, SCHWARTZ discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the anatomical structural classification comprises an anatomical structure code based on a set of numbers from 1 to 9 (information from state inputs 140, can be used to estimate other lesion properties in the data structure 130 such as for lesion size e.g., lesion depth, width, and/or volume, and/or type or condition e.g., reversible, irreversible, transmural, fibrotic, and/or edematous, a lesion property is continuously variable, for example, a size measurement, therefore in some embodiments, a lesion property comprises a category assignment-for example, the lesion is estimated as belong within one of a plurality of lesion depth categories. Such as, a lesion property comprises a qualitative state assessment; for example, "transmural", "irreversible", and/or "edematous", further, a property is associated with an estimate of likelihood; for example, a standard deviation and/or a confidence level such as level 1-9; page 21, line 28-page 22 line 8).
As per claim 9, SCHWARTZ discloses the method of claim 1, wherein evaluation engine determines anatomical structure classification based on the ablation points and a three-dimensional model of an atria as an input (state inputs provided at 140 optionally comprise any state relevant to the measurements, including, for example, position(s) of catheter electrode 103 and/or skin patch electrodes 105; and/or details of the anatomy of tissue 102 and/or target region 106. In some embodiments, details of anatomy comprise image data giving tissue types in positions through which field 104 is induced optionally, details of anatomy comprise a dielectric property model of the anatomy, for example, dielectric properties inferred from image data and/or typical dielectric properties of different tissue types further, the dielectric property model is refined by additional data received by electrode sensing, for example, sensing from catheter electrodes 103 and/or skin patch electrodes 105, user interface 150 comprises one or more controls graphical or hardware, for example and/or displays for making adjustments by the manipulation of numeric and/or slider position entries, option lists, tables, adjustable graphs or images, or another control, display, or combined control/display element; page 20, lines 5-23).
As per claim 12, SCHWARTZ discloses a system comprising (a computing system and method for performing ablation; abstract; fig 2; page 14, line 28-page 15, line 29): a memory configured to store processor executable program instructions of an evaluation engine (the computing system comprising computing components to perform the method including a computer processor CPU and memory components; page 19, lines 12-29; page 20, lines 5-23); and a processor configured to execute the program instructions of the evaluation engine to cause an apparatus to (the computing system comprising computing components to perform the method including a computer processor CPU and memory components; page 19, lines 12-29; page 20, lines 5-23): receive a plurality of ablation points respective to cardiac tissue of a patient (the system is adapted to ablate subject tissues based on ablation parameters and is performed on cardiac tissues of the patient; page 20, lines 1-5; page 31, lines 24-30); determine an anatomical structural classification comprising anatomical locations in two separate substantially circular rings around a left pulmonary vein (PV) and a right PV associated with the plurality of ablation points based on a structural segmentation for the cardiac tissue (a classification to determine the anatomical structures of the heart including a left and right pulmonary veins which are ablated in a circular/ring like pattern around the two pulmonary veins 48 of the right atrium of the heart; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 45, lines 6-31), and associating one or more segments of the left PV and right PV for the plurality of ablation points (in order to perform ablation the system uses a catheter probe 111 comprising at least one electrode103, acting as an ablation electrode, is moved sequentially along path 54, ablating at a plurality of locations to create a chain sub-lesions 52 (association of segments) at each location; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 45, lines 6-31); update the plurality of ablation points, based on the anatomical structural classification of two separate substantially circular rings around the left PV and the right PV and the structural segmentation for the cardiac tissue (updating the model based on classification to determine the anatomical structures of the heart including a left and right pulmonary veins which are ablated in a circular/ring like pattern around the two pulmonary veins 48 of the right atrium of the heart; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 45, lines 6-31; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12), to account for reconnection and redo locations using a contiguity estimation (and further the system takes a contiguity value to determine if locations need to be re-mapped/redone; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 45, lines 1-23); and provide the anatomical locations in two separate circular rings around the left PV and the right PV associated with the updated plurality of ablation points updated based on the anatomical structural classification of two separate substantially circular rings around the left PV and the right PV and the structural segmentation for the cardiac tissue to account for reconnection and redo locations using a contiguity estimation (the model is adapted to ablate the cardiac tissue at the left and right pulmonary vein and update the ablation points based on the contiguity value used to determine re-mapping of ablation path around the left and right pulmonary veins in a substantially circular/ring like pattern; page 13, lines 5-18; page 15, lines 10-30; page 28, lines 9-29; page 29, lines 7-32; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 39, lines 12-19; page 40, lines 24-27; page 45, lines 1-31) and including the one or more segments for the plurality of ablation points to support treatment of the cardiac tissue (in order to perform ablation the system uses a catheter probe 111 comprising at least one electrode103, acting as an ablation electrode, is moved sequentially along path 54, ablating at a plurality of locations to create a chain sub-lesions 52 (association of segments) at each location; page 33, line 1- page 34, line 12; page 39, lines 12-19; page 40, lines 24-27; page 45, lines 1-31).
As per claim 13, SCHWARTZ discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the evaluation engine determines right and left wide area circumferential ablation locations, respective to left and right pulmonary veins of the cardiac tissue, for the plurality of ablation points (the computing system is adapted to perform ablation around the right atrium of the heart which includes the left and right pulmonary veins; page 13, lines 5-18; page 15, lines 10-30; page 28, lines 9-29; page 29, lines 7-32).
As per claim 14, SCHWARTZ discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the evaluation engine utilizes manual annotations of training data to determine of the anatomical structural classification (the computing system uses existing data from databases of anatomical data to determine anatomical structural classification using its model; page 15, lines 10-32; page 47, lines 7-17).
As per claim 15, SCHWARTZ discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the structural segmentation of the cardiac tissue comprises at least one of right posterior, right inferior, right roof, right anterior, left posterior, right inferior, right roof, left ridge, and left anterior of left and right pulmonary veins (the model includes all anatomical structures of the heart, the right atrium, which contains and includes as stated the left and right pulmonary veins and their corresponding anatomical feature/positions; page 22, lines 9-26).
As per claim 19, SCHWARTZ discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the anatomical structural classification comprises an anatomical structure code based on a set of numbers from 1 to 9 (information from state inputs 140, can be used to estimate other lesion properties in the data structure 130 such as for lesion size e.g., lesion depth, width, and/or volume, and/or type or condition e.g., reversible, irreversible, transmural, fibrotic, and/or edematous, a lesion property is continuously variable, for example, a size measurement, therefore in some embodiments, a lesion property comprises a category assignment-for example, the lesion is estimated as belong within one of a plurality of lesion depth categories. Such as, a lesion property comprises a qualitative state assessment; for example, "transmural", "irreversible", and/or "edematous", further, a property is associated with an estimate of likelihood; for example, a standard deviation and/or a confidence level such as level 1-9; page 21, line 28-page 22 line 8).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2016/181318 A1 to SCHWARTZ et al (hereinafter “SCHWARTZ”) in view of US 9,788,905 B2 to AVISAR (hereinafter “AVISAR”).
As per claim 10, SCHWARTZ discloses the method of claim 9. SCHWARTZ fails to disclose wherein evaluation engine determines anatomical structure classification based on at least one of intracardiac electrocardiogram, visualization toolkit (VTK) anatomy file, and body surface electrocardiogram (ECG).
AVISAR discloses wherein evaluation engine determines anatomical structure classification based on at least one of intracardiac electrocardiogram, visualization toolkit (VTK) anatomy file, and body surface electrocardiogram (ECG) (the computing system using medical imaging data and a visualization toolkit file is adapted to generate real life model simulations of patient anatomy including that of a patients heart using medical imaging data; column 9, line 15-column 10 line 18; column 10, lines 19-62; column 20line 48-column 21, line 50).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SCHWARTZ to have wherein evaluation engine determines anatomical structure classification based on at least one of intracardiac electrocardiogram, visualization toolkit (VTK) anatomy file, and body surface electrocardiogram (ECG) of AVISAR reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to virtually test the tailored design of a graft to treat bypass or aneurysm or other illness as the system is not limited to the heart but would easily be applied and used as the model in combination with SCHWARTZ to read on the claims as suggested by column 21, lines 1-31 of AVISAR. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine AVISAR with SCHWARTZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
As per claim 11, SCHWARTZ in view of AVISAR discloses the method of claim 10. SCHWARTZ fails to disclose wherein the VTK anatomy file provide a three-dimensional (3D) shell of the atria.
AVISAR discloses wherein the VTK anatomy file provide a three-dimensional (3D) shell of the atria (medical imaging practices would be used to capture medical images and use those images to generate a respective VTK file for the atrium of the heart and would produce a realistic 3D model; column 9, line 15-column 10 line 18; column 10, lines 19-62; column 20 line 48-column 21, line 50).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SCHWARTZ to have wherein the VTK anatomy file provide a three-dimensional (3D) shell of the atria of AVISAR reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to virtually test the tailored design of a graft to treat bypass or aneurysm or other illness as the system is not limited to the heart but would easily be applied and used as the model in combination with SCHWARTZ to read on the claims as suggested by column 21, lines 1-31 of AVISAR. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine AVISAR with SCHWARTZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
As per claim 20, SCHWARTZ discloses the system of claim 12. SCHWARTZ fails to disclose wherein evaluation engine determines anatomical structure classification based on the ablation points and a three-dimensional model of an atria as an input.
AVISAR discloses wherein evaluation engine determines anatomical structure classification based on the ablation points and a three-dimensional model of an atria as an input (medical imaging practices would be used to capture medical images and use those images to generate a respective VTK file for the atrium of the heart and would produce a realistic 3D model which would be used as the input for the ablation system of SCHWARTZ; column 9, line 15-column 10 line 18; column 10, lines 19-62; column 20 line 48-column 21, line 50).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SCHWARTZ to have wherein evaluation engine determines anatomical structure classification based on the ablation points and a three-dimensional model of an atria as an input of AVISAR reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to virtually test the tailored design of a graft to treat bypass or aneurysm or other illness as the system is not limited to the heart but would easily be applied and used as the model in combination with SCHWARTZ to read on the claims as suggested by column 21, lines 1-31 of AVISAR. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine AVISAR with SCHWARTZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claims 5-7, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2016/181318 A1 to SCHWARTZ et al (hereinafter “SCHWARTZ”) in view of US 9,788,905 B2 to AVISAR (hereinafter “AVISAR”) in further view of WO 2019/231844 A1 to M, BUCKLER et al. (hereinafter “BUCKLER”).
As per claim 5, SCHWARTZ in view of AVISAR discloses the method of claim 1. Modified SCHWARTZ fails to disclose wherein the structural segmentation of the cardiac tissue comprises at least one of left WACA, right WACA, ostial PVI, roof line, left carina, right carina, posterior line, inferior line, mitral isthmus line, anterior line, anterior line, and cavo-tricuspid isthmus, superior vena cava isolation.
BUCKLER discloses wherein the structural segmentation of the cardiac tissue comprises at least one of left WACA, right WACA, ostial PVI, roof line, left carina, right carina, posterior line, inferior line, mitral isthmus line, anterior line, anterior line, and cavo-tricuspid isthmus, superior vena cava isolation (the posterior line is estimated (segmented) by accounting a discrete donut shape known as a blob in order to compute the blobs which have been labeled by analyte type; page 51, lines 3-28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SCHWARTZ to have structural segmentation and estimation features to determine a structure of the heart of BUCKLER reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to accurately and efficiently estimate the wall composition as stated in BUCKLER page 51, lines 19-25. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BUCKLER with modified SCHWARTZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As per claim 6, SCHWARTZ in view of AVISAR discloses the method of claim 1. Modified SCHWARTZ fails to disclose wherein the evaluation engine extracts morphological features from the plurality of effective points according to the structural segmentation.
BUCKLER discloses wherein the evaluation engine extracts morphological features from the plurality of effective points according to the structural segmentation (the biological feature is observed as biomarkers which indicates the feature has a biological relation to the patient and would be morphological in the feature being observed by the system; page 40 lines 7-28; page 47, lines 14-26).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SCHWARTZ to have the evaluation engine extracts morphological features of BUCKLER reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to observe dynamic tissue behavior such as permeability of cell tissues as suggested by BUCKLER at page 47, lines 14-16. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BUCKLER with modified SCHWARTZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As per claim 7, SCHWARTZ in view of AVISAR discloses the method of claim 6. Modified SCHWARTZ fails to disclose wherein an algorithm feature space of the morphological features comprises (x left, yleft, zleft), (x-right, yright, zright); (x-norm, ynorm, z_norm); and (x norm ring, ynorm_ring, znorm_ring).
BUCKLER discloses wherein an algorithm feature space of the morphological features comprises (x left, yleft, zleft), (x-right, yright, zright) (tissue characteristics are measured as T1, T2, and T3 (xleft, yleft, zleft/right) in order to estimate morphological features via an algorithm such as dynamic tissue behavior and permeability of tissue types; page 47, lines 3-26); (x-norm, ynorm, z_norm) (wherein the blob model used to estimate distances for overlapping mapping of ablation lines has its data provided in 2D, 3D or 4D coordinates has its position normalized; page 49, line 2 - page 50, line 14); and (x norm ring, ynorm_ring, znorm_ring) (wherein the blob models are further normalized based on the overall vessel wall structure; page 49, line 2 - page 50, line 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SCHWARTZ to have an algorithm feature space of the morphological features comprises (x left, yleft, zleft), (x-right, yright, zright); (x-norm, ynorm, z_norm); and (x norm ring, ynorm_ring, znorm_ring); of BUCKLER reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to use an iterative interference procedure which allows for current estimate of analyte probability and visualization of blob boundaries as suggested by BUCKLER at page 50, lines 22-24. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BUCKLER with modified SCHWARTZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As per claim 16, SCHWARTZ in view of AVISAR discloses the system of claim 12. Modified SCHWARTZ fails to disclose wherein the structural segmentation of the cardiac tissue comprises at least one of left WACA, right WACA, ostial PVI, roof line, left carina, right carina, posterior line, inferior line, mitral isthmus line, anterior line, anterior line, and cavo-tricuspid isthmus, superior vena cava isolation.
BUCKLER wherein the structural segmentation of the cardiac tissue comprises at least one of left WACA, right WACA, ostial PVI, roof line, left carina, right carina, posterior line, inferior line, mitral isthmus line, anterior line, anterior line, and cavo-tricuspid isthmus, superior vena cava isolation (the posterior line is estimated (segmented) by accounting a discrete donut shape known as a blob in order to compute the blobs which have been labeled by analyte type; page 51, lines 3-28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SCHWARTZ to have structural segmentation and estimation features to determine a structure of the heart of BUCKLER reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to accurately and efficiently estimate the wall composition as stated in BUCKLER page 51, lines 19-25. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BUCKLER with modified SCHWARTZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
As per claim 17, SCHWARTZ in view of AVISAR discloses the system of claim 12. Modified SCHWARTZ fails to disclose wherein the evaluation engine extracts morphological features from the plurality of effective points according to the structural segmentation.
BUCKLER discloses wherein the evaluation engine extracts morphological features from the plurality of effective points according to the structural segmentation (the biological feature is observed as biomarkers which indicates the feature has a biological relation to the patient and would be morphological in the feature being observed by the system; page 40 lines 7-28; page 47, lines 14-26).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SCHWARTZ to have the evaluation engine extracts morphological features of BUCKLER reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to observe dynamic tissue behavior such as permeability of cell tissues as suggested by BUCKLER at page 47, lines 14-16. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BUCKLER with modified SCHWARTZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
As per claim 18, SCHWARTZ in view of AVISAR discloses the system of claim 17. Modified SCHWARTZ fails to disclose wherein an algorithm feature space of the morphological features comprises (x left, yleft, zleft), (x-right, yright, zright); (x-norm, ynorm, z_norm); and (x norm ring, ynorm_ring, znorm_ring).
BUCKLER discloses wherein an algorithm feature space of the morphological features comprises (x left, yleft, zleft), (x-right, yright, zright) (tissue characteristics are measured as T1, T2, and T3 (xleft, yleft, zleft/right) in order to estimate morphological features via an algorithm such as dynamic tissue behavior and permeability of tissue types; page 47, lines 3-26); (x-norm, ynorm, z_norm) (wherein the blob model used to estimate distances for overlapping mapping of ablation lines has its data provided in 2D, 3D or 4D coordinates has its position normalized; page 49, line 2 - page 50, line 14); and (x norm ring, ynorm_ring, znorm_ring) (wherein the blob models are further normalized based on the overall vessel wall structure; page 49, line 2 - page 50, line 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SCHWARTZ to have an algorithm feature space of the morphological features comprises (x left, yleft, zleft), (x-right, yright, zright); (x-norm, ynorm, z_norm); and (x norm ring, ynorm_ring, znorm_ring); of BUCKLER reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to use an iterative interference procedure which allows for current estimate of analyte probability and visualization of blob boundaries as suggested by BUCKLER at page 50, lines 22-24. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BUCKLER with modified SCHWARTZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN JACOB DHOOGE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0999. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. 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.
/D J DHOOGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights