DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 02/09/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-18 is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Laughner fails to teach or suggest “an ablation selection status of one or more of the electrodes in the group corresponding to the given widget to selected or deselected based, at least in part, on a detection of an ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group.”
Applicant states on page 10 of the remarks, “This detection-based toggling maintains contiguous coverage and avoids ablation ambiguities that could arise in systems like Laughner where pattern selections (e.g., inner ring) simply activate the entire group without regard to adjacent statuses outside the group, potentially leaving gaps if prior selections were inconsistent.”
The Examiner disagrees. The pattern selection (e.g., inner ring) of Laughner clearly has regard to adjacent statuses outside the group. Para [0063] discloses the selection icon 314 “can be used to select a pattern from a pre-determined menu of patterns of electrode icon selections 310 (e.g., inner ring of electrode icons 310, outer ring, all electrode icons 310, none)”. For example, as stated in the rejection, a selection of the predetermined inner ring pattern from the configuration of Figure 4 necessarily requires the system to be aware that outer ring electrodes 1-6 and 12 are activated in order to deactivate said outer electrodes and activate said inner electrodes 13-18 to provide the disclosed pre-determined inner ring pattern of electrodes. Contrary to applicant’s remarks, such a process explicitly shows regard to adjacent statuses outside of the group. Regarding the instant claim, the selection and activation of the inner ring pattern is clearly based on the outer ring electrodes being in a non-selected state, thus implicitly requiring the detection of the status of the outer ring electrodes. It appears applicant is alleging that Laughner disregards the status of the outer ring electrodes when the inner ring predetermined pattern is selected (and vice versa), but this alleged configuration would directly contradict Laughner’s teaching of pre-determined patterns of electrode icon selections as disclosed in [0063].
The Examiner appreciates the applicant’s real-world example provided on page 10 of the remarks. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., overlapping triplet groups) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s real-world example of overlapping triplet groups is considerably narrower in scope than the instant claims. The instant claims merely recite “based, at least in part, on a detection of an ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group”. As established above, the Examiner is of the position that Laughner discloses toggling an ablation selection status of one or more electrodes in the group based, at least in part, on at least a passive detection of an ablation selection status of one or more adjacent electrodes not included in the group. The design choice rationale for modification of Laughner is not made to arrive at applicant’s real-world example. Rather said design choice rationale merely states that changing Laughner from a passive detection (e.g., deactivating outer electrodes 1-12 when the inner ring pattern is selected without actively detecting the active selection status of electrodes 1-6 & 12) to an active detection (e.g., detecting outer electrodes 1-6 & 12 are active and deactivating 1-6 & 12 when the inner ring pattern is selected) to yield the same expected result of a pre-determined electrode pattern of only the inner ring electrodes being in a selected state. The Examiner acknowledges such a modification of Laughner is not representative of the specification of the instant application, however the examiner is of the position that the instant claims are broader in scope than that of the applicant’s specification.
Applicant’s arguments to claims 17-18 and 2-16 are equally unpersuasive for the reasons stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughner (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0237425).
Regarding claim 1, Laughner teaches A method, comprising: grouping a set of electrodes disposed at a distal end of a medical probe and configured to contact tissue in a body cavity into a plurality of groups, each group comprising a plurality of adjacent electrodes (Fig 3 [0063], electrodes are grouped as at least an inner and outer ring grouping); presenting, on a display, a set of selectable widgets having a one-to-one correspondence with the groups (Fig 3-4 [0063], screen displays electrode selection icon 314 being used to select a group corresponding one to one to the groups from a pre-determined menu of patterns (i.e, inner ring electrodes, outer ring electrodes, all electrodes, or none, or reverese each have corresponding selectable widget in said pre-determined menu)); receiving, by a processor, an input indicating selection of a given widget (Figs 3-4 and [0063-0067] user can select given widgets); and toggling, in response to the selection, an ablation selection status of one or more of the electrodes in the group corresponding to the given widget to selected or deselected ([0067] selected electrodes are toggled as active for an ablation therapy) based, at least in part, on a detection of an ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group ([0063, 0067] selection of the inner ring icon 314 would toggle a selection status of said inner ring electrodes (i.e., the corresponding group) based at least in part on an ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the corresponding group (e.g., the outer ring); for example, selecting the inner ring icon 314 from Figure 4 would require the processor to detect electrodes 1-6 & 12 as being selected, thus enabling the toggling of electrode 1-6 & 12 and electrodes 13-18 such that only the inner ring electrodes 13-18 are active).
Laughner fails to explicitly teach detection of an ablation selection status of the one or more electrodes adjacent, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Laughner to incorporate a detection of an ablation selection status of electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group, since applicant has not disclosed that the detection of the selection status of adjacent electrodes solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the selection icons 314 of Laughner that controls the selection status of both electrodes in the corresponding group (e.g., inner ring) and the selection status of adjacent electrodes not in the corresponding group (e.g., outer ring).
Regarding claim 2, Laughner further teaches one or more electrodes in the set of electrodes belongs to more than one of the plurality of groups (Fig 4, groups are overlapping, meaning highlighted group 310 overlaps with electrodes from both the inner ring and outer ring groupings).
Regarding claim 3, Laughner further teaches and further comprising identifying the ablation selection status for each of the electrodes in the set of electrodes, presenting, on the display, a set of icons having a one-to-one correspondence with each of the electrodes in the set of electrodes, wherein the presented icons comprise respective visual configurations of the ablation selection status of each of the electrodes in the set of electrodes (Fig 4, shows ablation selection status on display for active and inactive electrodes in a one to one correspondence).
Regarding claim 4, Laughner further teaches wherein the distal end is selected from a group consisting of a lasso, a basket, a balloon, and a deflectable element (Fig 2, expandable member 202 is a balloon; [0049] also disclosing balloon).
Regarding claim 17, Laughner teaches An apparatus, comprising: an invasive medical probe configured to be inserted into a body cavity and comprising a set of electrodes disposed at a distal end of the probe and configured to contact tissue in the body cavity (Fig 2 ablation catheter 200 with electrodes 204); a display (Fig 3, GUI 300); and a processor configured: to group the set of electrodes into a plurality of groups of adjacent electrodes, to present, on the display, a set of selectable widgets having a one-to-one correspondence with the groups (Fig 3, electrodes are grouped as adjacent electrodes each having a number 1-18; examiner notes ‘a plurality of groups of adjacent electrodes’ is interpreted such that each ‘group’ can comprise a single electrode with an adjacent electrode(s) defining adjacent group(s) to define ‘a plurality of groups of adjacent electrodes’; additionally [0063] describes an inner and outer ring grouping), to receive an input indicating selection of a given widget (Figs 3-4 and [0063-0067] user can select given widgets), and to toggle, in response to the selection, an ablation selection status of one or more of the electrodes in the group corresponding to the given widget to selected or deselected ([0067] selected electrodes are toggled as active for an ablation therapy) based, at least in part, on a detection of an ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group ([0063, 0067] selection of the inner ring icon 314 would toggle a selection status of said inner ring electrodes (i.e., the corresponding group) based at least in part on an ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the corresponding group (e.g., the outer ring); for example, selecting the inner ring icon 314 with an initial selection status as shown in Figure 4 would implicitly require the processor to detect the status of non-corresponding electrodes 1-6 & 12 as being selected, thus enabling the toggling of electrode 1-6 & 12 and electrodes 13-18 such that only the inner ring electrodes 13-18 are active).
Laughner fails to explicitly teach active detection of an ablation selection status of the one or more electrodes adjacent, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Laugner to incorporate a detection of an ablation selection status of electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group, since applicant has not disclosed that the detection of the selection status of adjacent electrodes solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the selection icons 314 of Laughner that controls the selection status of both electrodes in the corresponding group (e.g., inner ring) and the selection status of adjacent electrodes not in the corresponding group (e.g., outer ring).
Regarding claim 18, Laughner teaches A computer software product, operated in conjunction with a medical probe configured to be inserted into a body cavity and comprising a set of electrodes disposed at a distal end of the probe and configured to contact tissue in the body cavity (Fig 2 ablation catheter 200 with electrodes 204), the product comprising a non-transitory computer- readable medium, in which program instructions are stored, which instructions, when read by a computer, cause the computer: to group the set of electrodes into a plurality of groups of adjacent electrodes (Fig 3, electrodes are grouped as adjacent electrodes each having a number 1-18; examiner notes ‘a plurality of groups of adjacent electrodes’ is interpreted such that each ‘group’ can comprise a single electrode with an adjacent electrode(s) defining adjacent group(s) to define ‘a plurality of groups of adjacent electrodes’; additionally [0063] describes an inner and outer ring grouping); to present, on a display, a set of selectable widgets having a one-to-one correspondence with the groups (Fig 3-4,screen displays selectable widgets corresponding to groups (i.e., a widget corresponding to each of electrodes 1-18 respectively)); to receive an input indicating selection of a given widget (Figs 3-4 and [0063-0067] user can select given widgets); and to toggle, in response to the selection, an ablation selection status of one or more of the electrodes in the group corresponding to the given widget to selected or deselected ([0067] selected electrodes are toggled as active for an ablation therapy) based, at least in part, on a detection of an ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group ([0063, 0067] selection of the inner ring icon 314 would toggle a selection status of said inner ring electrodes (i.e., the corresponding group) based at least in part on an ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the corresponding group (e.g., the outer ring); for example, selecting the inner ring icon 314 with an initial selection status as shown in Figure 4 would implicitly require the processor to detect the status of non-corresponding electrodes 1-6 & 12 as being selected, thus enabling the toggling of electrode 1-6 & 12 and electrodes 13-18 such that only the inner ring electrodes 13-18 are active).
Laughner fails to explicitly teach detection of an ablation selection status of the one or more electrodes adjacent, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Laugner to incorporate a detection of an ablation selection status of electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the corresponding group, since applicant has not disclosed that the detection of the selection status of adjacent electrodes solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the selection icons 314 of Laughner that controls the selection status of both electrodes in the corresponding group (e.g., inner ring) and the selection status of adjacent electrodes not in the corresponding group (e.g., outer ring).
Claim(s) 5-8, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughner (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0237425) in view of Marshik (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0297415)
Regarding claim 5, Laughner teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above.
Laughner fails to teach comprising identifying a toggle status for each of the groups, wherein the toggle status for a given group indicates whether or not the ablation selection status of any of the electrodes in the given group can be toggled between a selectable and a non- selectable state, wherein the presented widgets comprise respective visual configurations of the toggle status of the widgets, and wherein receiving the toggle status of the given widget indicates that the ablation selection status of the electrodes in the corresponding group can be toggled.
In related prior art, Marshik teaches a similar method comprising identifying a toggle status for each of the groups, wherein the toggle status for a given group indicates whether or not the ablation selection status of any of the electrodes in the given group can be toggled between a selectable and a non- selectable state ([0085] computing device 124 determines a list 410 of selectable ablation electrodes 204 which defines a toggle status). Marshik further teaches where unselected electrodes may be unhighlighted or faded to visually distinguish to a user ([0073]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laughner in view of Marshik to incorporate the step of identifying a toggle status for each group and providing respective visual configurations of the toggle status of the widgets to indicate the ablation selection status of the electrodes in the corresponding groups can be toggled to arrive at claim 5. Providing the toggle status would advantageously ensure that a user does not select electrodes for ablation that have poor contact and/or impedance ([0084-0085]). Providing visual configurations of the toggle status of the widgets would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to yield the predictable result of informing a user of the results of the identified toggle status as to which ablation electrode groups are un-selectable as the use of visual distinguishments on a GUI to convey various electrode statuses is known in the art ([0073]).
Regarding claim 6-7, in view of the combination of claim 5 above, Laughner further teaches presenting a toggle widget on the display, and wherein upon receiving an input selecting the toggle widget, setting the ablation selection status to the set of electrodes to the selectable state (Fig 3 activate/deactivate icon 344; selecting the icon 344 to stop ablation [0081] reverts the electrodes to a selectable state); presenting a toggle widget on the display, and wherein upon receiving an input selecting the toggle widget, setting the ablation selection status to the set of electrodes to the non-selectable state (Fig 3 activate/deactivate icon 344; [0081] selecting the icon 344 to begin the ablation procedure places the plurality of electrodes to a non-selectable state during ablation).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the combination of claim 5 above, Laughner further teaches wherein the electrodes comprise ablation electrodes ([0060] electrodes are ablation electordes), and further comprising conveying ablation energy to the ablation electrodes having selectable states ([0060] selected electrodes convey ablation energy to tissue)
Regarding claim 10, in view of the combination of claim 5 above, Laughner further teaches wherein selecting the given widget toggles the given widget between a widget selected state and a widget deselected state (Figs 3-4, selecting given widget toggles the widget (electrode) between a selected and deselected state).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the combination of claim 10 above, Laughner further teaches wherein upon toggling the given widget from a widget selected state to a widget deselected state in response to the input (Fig 3 and [0063] deselecting any given widget places said widget in a deselected stated) and detecting that the ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the group corresponding to the given widget are non-selected (Fig 3 and [0063]; widget corresponding to inner ring of electrode icons 310; selecting said widget yields the inner ring selected and outer ring non-selected, thus unselecting said widget yields the inner ring and outer ring (i.e., adjacent electrodes) non-selected), setting the ablation selection status of the electrodes in the corresponding group to deselected (Fig 3 and [0063] after deselecting any given widget the electrodes corresponding to the group relating to said widget are deselected). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Laughner in view of Marshik to incorporate the step of detecting the ablation selection status of electrodes adjacent to the electrodes in the group corresponding to the selected widget are non-selected to arrive at the device of claim 14, since applicant has not disclosed that the detecting of non-selected adjacent electrodes solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the widget unselecting the group of electrodes corresponding to the unselected widget.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughner in view of Marshik, and in further view of Single (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0083169).
Regarding claim 9, the Laughner/Marshik combination teaches the method of claim 8 as stated above.
Laughner/Marshik fail to teach wherein the ablation energy comprises irreversible electroporation.
In related prior art, Single teaches a similar method wherein the ablation energy comprises irreversible electroporation (Figs 2-12 show similar GUI; [0031-0033] disclosing IRE). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ablation energy of Laughner in view of Marshik and Single to incorporate irreversible electroporation energy to arrive at the method of claim 9. Providing IRE energy is well-known type of ablation energy known in the art to yield known and predicted results therein compared to general ablation ([0035] describing electroporation based therapies).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughner in view of Marshik, and in further view of Stewart (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0030328).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the combination of claim 10 above. Laughner teaches the selection of groupings of electrodes to activate said electrodes corresponding to the group and de-selecting adjacent electrodes not corresponding to the selected group ([0063] disclosing selectable patterns).
Laughner fails to teach wherein upon toggling the given widget from a widget deselected state to a widget selected state in response to the input and detecting that the ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the group corresponding to the selected widget are non-selected, setting the ablation selection status of the electrodes in the corresponding group to selected.
In related prior art, Stewart teaches a similar method and device comprising grouping a set of electrodes disposed at a distal end of a medical probe and configured to contact tissue in a body cavity into a plurality of groups of adjacent electrodes (see Figs 7-8 comprising grouping of electrodes E1 & E3, E3 & E5, E5 & E7, etc.); wherein the ablation selection status of the electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the group corresponding to the selected widget are non-selected (Figs 7-8, selected active group E1 & E3 have adjacent non-selected electrodes E16, E2, and E4 that are part of different groupings), setting the ablation selection status of the electrodes in the corresponding group to selected (Figs 7-8, selected group E1 and E3 is set to active and selected). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groupings of Laughner in view of Marshik and Stewart to incorporate a selectable widget corresponding to the groupings of Figs 7-8 of Stewart having adjacent non-selected electrodes relative to the corresponding selected group, such that selecting the widget for this grouping ensures the adjacent electrodes are unselected and the chosen electrodes are selected to arrive at the method of claim 11. Doing so would advantageously provide the method and system with another pre-determined pattern of electrode activation to achieve additional functionality of the electrode set to meet different use cases (Stewart [0081] disclosing Fig 7-8 advantageously provide deeper electroporation tissue penetration).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the combination of claim 10 above. Laughner teaches the selection of groupings of electrodes to activate said electrodes corresponding to the group and de-selecting adjacent electrodes not corresponding to the selected group ([0063] disclosing selectable patterns).
Laughner fails to teach wherein each of the groups comprise a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes located between the pair of outer electordes, and wherein upon toggling the given widget from a widget deselected state to a widget selected state in response to the input and detecting that the ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the group corresponding to the given widget are selected, setting the ablation selection status of the one or more inner electrodes in the corresponding group to selected.
In related prior art, Stewart teaches a similar method and device comprising grouping a set of electrodes wherein each of the groups comprise a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes located between the pair of outer electrodes (see Figs 5-6 comprising grouping of electrodes E15-E16-E1; E16-E1-E2; E1-E2-E3, etc. defining multiple groupings of electrodes having two outer electrodes and an inner electrode therebetween); the ablation selection status of the electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the group corresponding to the selected widget are selected (Figs 5-6, electrodes adjacent to a group, but not included in said group, are selected; For example, group E15-E16-E1, has adjacent electrodes E2 and E14 selected as active), setting the ablation selection status of the one or more inner electrodes in the corresponding group to selected (Figs 5-6, inner electrode of each group is selected as active; for example inner electrode E16 is active). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groupings of Laughner in view of Marshik and Stewart to incorporate a selectable widget corresponding to the groupings of Figs 5-6 of Stewart having adjacent selected electrodes relative to the corresponding selected group, such that selecting the widget for this grouping ensures the adjacent electrodes are selected and the chosen electrodes are selected to arrive at the method of claim 12. Doing so would advantageously provide the method and system with another pre-determined pattern of electrode activation to achieve additional functionality of the electrode set to meet different use cases (Stewart [0081] disclosing Fig 5-6 advantageously is useful for recording mapping signals).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the combination of claim 10 above. Laughner teaches the selection of groupings of electrodes to activate said electrodes corresponding to the group and de-selecting adjacent electrodes not corresponding to the selected group ([0063] disclosing selectable patterns).
Laughner fails to teach wherein each of the groups comprise a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes located between the pair of outer electrodes, and wherein upon toggling the given widget from a widget deselected state to a widget selected state in response to the input, detecting that the ablation selection status of a first given electrode adjacent to a first outer electrode, but not included in the electrodes in the group corresponding to the selected widget is selected, and detecting that the ablation selection status a second given electrode adjacent to a second outer electrode, but not included in the electrodes in the corresponding group is non-selected, setting the ablation selection status of the first outer electrode adjacent to first given electrode to selected.
In related prior art, Stewart teaches a similar method and device comprising grouping a set of electrodes wherein each of the groups comprise a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes located between the pair of outer electrodes (see Figs 14 comprising grouping of electrodes E1-E2-E3 comprising two outer electrodes E1/E3 and an inner electrode E2); the ablation selection status of a first given electrode adjacent to a first outer electrode, but not included in the electrodes in the group corresponding to the selected widget is selected (Fig 14, E8 adjacent to group E1 is selected as active), and detecting that the ablation selection status a second given electrode adjacent to a second outer electrode, but not included in the electrodes in the corresponding group is non-selected (Fig 14, E4 adjacent to E3 is selected as nonselected), setting the ablation selection status of the first outer electrode adjacent to the first given electrode to selected (Fig 14, E1, adjacent to first given electorde E8, is set to selected and active). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groupings of Laughner in view of Marshik and Stewart to incorporate a selectable widget corresponding to the groupings of Fig 14 of Stewart having one adjacent selected electrode and one adjacent non-selected electrode relative to the outer electrodes of the selected group, such that selecting the widget for this grouping ensures the outer electrodes of the chosen group are selected to arrive at the method of claim 13. Doing so would advantageously provide the method and system with another pre-determined pattern of electrode activation to achieve additional functionality of the electrode set to meet different use cases (Stewart Fig 5-20 disclosing different electrode configuration patterns to advantageously provide differing benefits).
Regarding claim 15, in view of the combination of claim 10 above, Laughner further teaches wherein each of the groups comprise a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes (Fig 5 and [0063]; inner and outer ring groups each respectively comprise a pair of outer electrodes encompassing one or more inner electrodes), and wherein upon toggling the given widget from a widget selected state to a widget deselected state in response to the input (Fig 3 and [0063]; deselection of widget corresponding to inner ring of electrode icons 310) and detecting that the ablation selection status of one or more electrodes adjacent to, but not included in, the electrodes in the group corresponding to the given widget are selected (Fig 3 and [0063]; instance in which deselection of widget corresponding to inner ring of electrode icons 310 becomes deselected by selecting the outer ring of electrode icons 310 necessitates a recognition by the processor that the adjacent electrodes (i.e., the outer ring) are now selected), setting the ablation selection status of the one or more inner electrodes in the corresponding group to deselected (Fig 3 and [0063]; when widget corresponding to inner ring of electrode icons 310 goes from a selected state to a de-selected the one or more inner electrodes of the inner ring are deselected).
Laughner fails to teach wherein each of the groups comprise a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes located between the pair of outer electrodes.
In related prior art, Stewart teaches a similar method and device comprising grouping a set of electrodes wherein each of the groups comprise a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes located between the pair of outer electrodes (see Figs 7-8 comprising grouping of electrodes E15-E16-E1; E1-E2-E3; E5-E6-E7, etc. defining multiple groupings of electrodes having two outer electrodes with an inner electrode therebetween). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groupings of Laughner in view of Marshik and Stewart to incorporate a selectable widget corresponding to the groupings of Figs 7-8 of Stewart having groupings having a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes located therebetween, such that selecting the widget for this grouping sets the outer electrodes to active and the inner electrode to deselected to arrive at the method of claim 15. Doing so would advantageously provide the method and system with another pre-determined pattern of electrode activation to achieve additional functionality of the electrode set to meet different use cases (Stewart [0081] disclosing Fig 5-6 advantageously is useful for recording mapping signals).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the combination of claim 10 above. Laughner teaches the selection of groupings of electrodes to activate said electrodes corresponding to the group and de-selecting adjacent electrodes not corresponding to the selected group ([0063] disclosing selectable patterns).
Laughner fails to teach wherein each of the groups comprise a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes located between the pair of outer electrodes, and wherein upon toggling the given widget from a widget selected state to a widget deselected state in response to the input, detecting that the ablation selection status of a first given electrode adjacent to a first outer electrode, but not included in the electrodes in the group corresponding to the selected widget is selected, and detecting that the ablation selection status a second given electrode adjacent to a second outer electrode, but not included in the electrodes in the corresponding group is non-selected, setting the ablation selection status of the first outer electrode adjacent to the first given electrode to deselected.
In related prior art, Stewart teaches a similar method and device comprising grouping a set of electrodes wherein each of the groups comprise a pair of outer electrodes and one or more inner electrodes located between the pair of outer electrodes (see Figs 14 comprising grouping of electrodes E2-E3-E4 comprising two outer electrodes E2/E4 and an inner electrode E3 located therebetween); the ablation selection status of a first given electrode adjacent to a first outer electrode, but not included in the electrodes in the group corresponding to the selected widget is selected (Fig 14, E1 adjacent to outer electrode E2 is selected as active), and detecting that the ablation selection status of a second given electrode adjacent to a second outer electrode, but not included in the electrodes in the corresponding group is non-selected (Fig 14, E11 adjacent to second outer electrode E4 is selected as nonselected), setting the ablation selection status of the first outer electrode adjacent to the first given electrode to deselected (Fig 14, first outer electrode E2, adjacent to active electrode E1, is inactive and deselected). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groupings of Laughner in view of Marshik and Stewart to incorporate a selectable widget corresponding to the groupings of Fig 14 of Stewart having one adjacent selected electrode and one adjacent non-selected electrode relative to the outer electrodes of the selected group, such that deselecting of this widget for this grouping would deselect the outer electrode adjacent to the first given electrode to arrive at the method of claim 16. Doing so would advantageously provide the method and system with another pre-determined pattern of electrode activation to achieve additional functionality of the electrode set to meet different use cases (Stewart Fig 5-20 disclosing different electrode configuration patterns to advantageously provide differing benefits).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794