DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on November 17, 2021. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 3-9 is/are withdrawn. A first action on the merits of claims 1-2 and 10-14 is as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 17, 2025.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The specification contains drawings and should include (i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S) section.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 300, 200, 310, and 360. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the improvement comprises the measurement and output of the value of the instantaneous differential resistance”. This claim limitation is drafted in a Jepson-like format which is taken as an implied admission that the subject matter of the limitation is the prior art work of another. However, the preamble or the claim does not identify work done by another as prior art so the Jepson language is not needed and there is no real patentable weight to this limitation.
Claim 1 comprises two sentences. The claim must be in one sentence form only.
Claim 2 further recites “wherein the improvement comprises that:..” twice. This claim limitation is drafted in Jepson-like format which is taken as an implied admission that the subject matter of the limitation is the prior art work of another. However, the preamble or the claim does not identify work done by another as prior art so the Jepson language is not needed and there are no real patentable weight to these limitations.
Claim 2 comprises four sentences. The claim must be in one sentence form only.
Claim 11 recites “a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator” twice. These limitations should be changed to –the cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator--.
Claim 11 recites “the inputted data”. This limitation should be changed to –the input data--.
Claim 11 recites “an arrhythmia according to the detection algorithms…” This limitation should be changed to –the arrhythmia according to the detection algorithms…--.
Claim 11 recites “the sensor device 160”. This limitation should be changed to –the sensor device (160)--.
Claim 12 recites “the inputted data”. This limitation should be changed to –the input data--.
Claim 12, ln. 3 recites “an arrhythmia or a predisposition of an arrhythmia”. This limitation should be changed to –the arrhythmia or a predisposition of the arrhythmia--.
Claim 12, ln. 13: “an unipolar or a bipolar mode”. These limitations should be changed to –the unipolar or the bipolar mode--.
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 10-13. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 14 has not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the instantaneous voltage and current”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitation.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the improvement comprises the measurement and output of the value of the instantaneous differential resistance”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitation. Furthermore, it is unclear if 1) “the measurement” is “the instantaneous voltage and current” and 2) “output of the value of the instantaneous differential resistance” is derived from “the instantaneous voltage and current”.
Claim 1 further recite “at least one active electrodes” in lines 1, 8, 10, 16 and 18. It is unclear if there is one “at least one active electrodes” or multiple distinct “at least one active electrodes”. The examiner will apply art based upon the understanding that the claim requires one “at least one or two active electrodes”.
Accordingly, claims 2 and 10-13 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the mapping catheter is preferably multipolar”. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites “the arrhythmic substrate”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitation.
Claim 2 recites “the mapping catheter is optionally….” The phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 further recites “the catheter device (110) comprises a distal end (120) connected by a flexible shaft…” The scope of the invention is unclear because the claim recites different structural parts but it does not recite where these structural parts are located along the mapping catheter. For example, it is unclear if “a distal end (120)” of the catheter device (110) is the distal end of the mapping catheter or another structure different from the mapping catheter. In light of the specification ([0025]: “catheter device (110) that comprises a mapping catheter according to the invention”), the examiner understands that all the claimed structures associated with the catheter device is part of the mapping catheter.
Claim 2 recites “the active electrodes”. It is unclear which one of the “at least one or at least two active electrodes” the claim limitation is referring to.
Claim 10 recites “the device is part of…” However, it is unclear if the device is ‘the electrophysiology device” or “the sensor device” of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the housing of the cardiac implantable device”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitation.
Claim 11 recites “the sensing algorithms”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitation.
Claim 11 recites “the detection algorithms”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitation.
Claim 11 recites “the electrophysiology device receives input data from the sensor device”. However, claim 1 recites that the electrophysiology device comprises the sensor device. Therefore, it is unclear which other structure of the electrophysiology device receives the input data from the sensor device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozel (WO 03/089997), in view of Selig (U.S. PGPub. No. 2009/0281539) and further in view of Thompson (GB 2278548).
In regards to independent claim 1, Kozel discloses a cardiac electrophysiology device (mapping and ablation catheter system in Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one or at least two active electrodes (each of the filaments 34 form the braided conductive member 28; the filaments 34 can be independently controlled to deliver energy, or for monopolar or bipolar (differential between filament) type mapping, pg. 11, ln. 8-27),
a neutral electrode (catheter shaft 12 comprises a reference electrode 13 so that reference electrode 13 can be used as a reference in the unipolar mapping mode, pg. 11, ln. 25-27),
a sensor device (controller 8 in Fig. 1 connected to the catheter 10 used to process signals coming from catheter 10 during mapping application and control delivery of ablation energy, pg. 5, ln. 12-22),
a first selector switch (one of the switches SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4 in Fig. 29) for selecting two pairs of filaments 24 for bipolar mapping and/or ablation) connected to at least one active electrode and further connected to the sensor device (switches SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4 are Fig. 29 is for selecting two pairs of filaments 34 for bipolar mapping and/or ablation; note that the controller 8 is configured to select the different pairs of filaments which means that the controller 8, the switches SW1-SW4 and the filaments 34 are all mechanically connected), the first selector switch being configured to electrically connect the sensor device to at least one active electrode (switches SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4 in Fig. 29 are for selecting two pairs of filaments 34 for bipolar mapping and/or ablation; note that the controller 8 is configured to select the different pairs of filaments which means that the controller 8, the switches SW1-SW4 and the filaments 34 are electrically connected depending upon the selection of the filaments 34 and the switches),
characterized in that the cardiac electrophysiology device further comprises:
a resistor (R1-R36 in Figs. 30A-3D) having a fixed value in the range of 0.10 ohm to 2 mega ohm (pg. 15, ln. 12-15: “That common node provides a virtual electrical null point (average) against which unipolar electrogram channels can be formed. Resistors R1-R36 have a typical value of l0kΩ.”), the resistor being connected to the neutral electrode (the R1-R36 in Figs. 30A-30D is connected to the circuitry in Fig. 29, and note that the all of the elements of the system of Fig. 1 are connected directly or indirectly; the filament 34 and the reference electrode 34 are mechanically connected via the shaft 12; in the unipolar mapping and/or ablation mode, the reference electrode is electrically connected to a selected filament 34 and its respective resistor selected from R1-R36),
a second selector switch (SW 5 in Fig. 29) connected to at least one active electrode and further connected to the resistor (note that all the elements of system as shown in Fig. 1 including the SW5, filaments 34 and resistors, R1-R36 are directly or indirectly mechanically connected), the second selector switch being configured to electrically connect to resistor to at least one active electrode (Fig. 29 illustrates SW5 being connected to a selected filament(s) 34 which would further connect to its respective R1-R36).
However, Kozel is silent as to the sensor device comprising voltage meter.
Selig discloses a neutral electrode (neutral electrode 3 in Fig. 3 comprising conductive portions 10 and 14) configured to attach to a skin of a human during a monopolar high frequency treatment (annotated Fig. 10 illustrates the neutral electrode 3 comprising the conductive portions 10 and 14 receiving two currents- a treatment current IHF and monitoring current IM [0002], [0036]). Selig further discloses a sensor device (impedance measuring device 20) which monitors impedance by measuring first and second voltage across the two conductive portions (10 and 14 in Fig. 10) of the neutral electrode (3 in Fig. 10) via a first voltage meter (voltage measuring device 36 in Fig. 10) and a second voltage meter (voltage measuring device 35 in Fig. 10), respectively when the treatment current and monitoring current flows across the two conductive portions (10 and 14) of the neutral electrode ([0038]-[0044]). Using the two impedance measurements, the sensor device (impedance measuring device 20) is configured to determine the detachment of the neutral electrode to prevent excessive heating during treatment ([0038]-[0044], [0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Kozel discloses providing the neutral electrode on a catheter shaft instead of on a skin (pg. 11, ln. 25-2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a neutral electrode disposed on a catheter shaft or a neutral electrode disposed on a skin as taught by Selig as any of these two locations for providing the neutral electrode on a patient’s body is well-known in the art for the same purpose of returning the treatment current from an active electrode through a tissue into the generator during unipolar ablation and mapping modes.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor device of Kozai and incorporate the voltage meter as taught by Selig to measure the instantaneous voltage so that the device is capable of providing an output of a value of the instantaneous differential resistance (in light of the 112b above, the examiner interprets change in impedance monitored to read on the output of the value of the instantaneous differential resistance. Applicant is advised to clearly recite which parameters and equation are used to derive the claimed output of the value of the instantaneous differential resistance) across the conductive portions of the neutral electrode, as doing so monitors the detachment of the neutral electrode to prevent excessive heating during treatment ([0038]-[0044], [0046]).
However, Kozai/Selig combination fails to disclose a current meter since Selig only discloses providing current generators with constant currents during instantaneous differential resistance monitoring.
Thompson teaches a sensor device (an impedance measuring device 46 in Fig. 9) for measuring a load impedance of an electrosurgical device (load ZL of an electrosurgical device in Fig. 9). Specifically, Thompson discloses providing a current sensor (current sensor indicated as ‘A’ in Fig. 9) configured to measure an actual current delivered to the load (ZL) instead of relying on a current produced by an electrosurgical generator (pg. 2, ln. 18-pg. 3, ln.11) as there are discrepancies between the current source and the current load due to leakage current which leads to inaccurate impedance load measurement (pg. 2, ln. 17-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kozai/Selig combination and further incorporate a current meter as taught by Thompson, thereby accurately measuring the actual current that is delivered at the load and to the tissue being treated during ablation as doing so further allows for a more accurate monitoring of impedance or the value of the instantaneous differential resistance.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozel, Selig and Thompson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jimenez et al. (hereinafter ‘Jimenez’, JP 2007185505), and further in view of Kadamus et al. (hereinafter ‘Kadamus’, WO 2015/148541).
In regards to claim 2, Kozel further discloses a catheter device (mapping and ablation catheter system in Fig. 1) comprising the cardiac electrophysiology device of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and a mapping catheter (catheter shaft 12 in Fig. 1):
operating optionally in multipolar manner (bipolar mapping can be provided with the catheter system 1),
having a basket, three-dimensional architecture (the filaments 34 form a braided conductive member 28 in Fig. 1),
having an open irrigated catheter (pg. 24, ln. 5-pg. 25, ln. 11: “Once braided conductive member 28 has been constructed with composite wire 110, the insulation 118 surrounding wire filament 112 can be stripped away to form an electrode surface. Holes can then be provided into perfusion lumen 116 to then allow perfusion at targeted sites along the electrode surface”),
being flushed with an ink which provides the electrophysiology therapy to the arrhythmic substrate (pg. 23, ln. 15-19: “Radioopaque coatings or markers can also be used to provide a reference point for orientation of braided conductive member 28 when viewed during fluoroscopic imaging. The materials that provide radiopacity including, for example, Au, Pt, Ir, and other known to those skilled in the art. These materials may be incorporated and used as coatings as described above.” The coated materials are conductive and is capable of delivering ablative energy when the filaments are selected to delivery ablative energy).
In light of the 112b rejection above, the examiner will apply art based upon the understanding that the following claimed structures are directed to the mapping catheter as this is consistent with the instant specification (see Figs. 1-2).
Kozel further discloses the mapping catheter of the catheter device comprises a distal end (distal end comprising distal tip portion18, braided conductive member 28 as shown in Fig. 2) connected by a flexible shaft (catheter shaft 12 in Fig. 1) to a proximal end (proximal end comprising handle 14 as shown in Fig. 2), the distal end of the mapping catheter comprises the active electrodes (the braided conductive member 28 comprises braided filaments 34, where each of the braided filaments operates as an electrode), each of the active electrodes is connected via a plurality of low resistive wires to at least one connector at the proximal end (pg. 6, ln. 1-7: “When used in mapping applications, connector portion 16 is used to allow signal wires running from the electrodes at the distal portion of the catheter to be connected to a device for processing the electrical signals, such as a recording”).
Kozel/Selig/Thompson combination further discloses that the neutral electrode is configured to be attached to a patient’s skin (Selig, see neutral electrode 3 disposed on skin in Fig. 10, [0002], [0036]).
Although Kozel/Selig/Thompson combination discloses that the distal end of the mapping catheter can be steered (Kozel, pg. 19, ln. 22-col. 20, ln. 12), it does not necessarily disclose the internal structure associated with steering mechanism including at least one flexible wire formed of a super plastic material and shaped to bias the distal end in at least one orientation in response to the movement of an operating element of the mapping catheter.
Jimenez teaches a catheter similar to Kozel comprising a puller wire passing through a catheter body (puller wire 50 disposed along catheter body 12 as shown in Fig. 3A) with its proximal end secured to the control handle (handle 16 as shown in Fig. 1) and its distal end secured to the distal tip (tip 28 of the catheter in Fig. 1). The puller wire is formed from any suitable material such as stainless steel or nitinol and the means for deflecting the tip portion by operation of the control handle ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kozel/Selig combination and incorporate at least one flexible wire formed from stainless steel or nitinol to steer the distal end of the catheter as taught by Jimenez and using wire(s) for orienting the distal end of the catheter via the handle involves routine skilled in the art and a predictable result would ensue.
However, Kozel/Selig/Jimenez combination does not disclose the handle having an operating element for triggering different measurement functions of the control unit or measurement of the sensor device.
Kadamus teaches an operating element displayed on a user interface (user interface 105 in Fig. 1) for controlling initiation, modifying and stopping operation of one or more functions of a medical catheter (catheter 100 in Fig. 1). The user interface is disposed on a handle (handle 101 in Fig. 1) and includes electrical control on a touchscreen for user input c to allow an operator to initiate, regulate, modify, stop and/or otherwise control one or more functions of catheter ([0093]). Given that Kozel discloses that control of one or more functions of the device (e.g. unipolar mapping, bipolar mapping, and ablation) are controlled via user input, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kozel/Marchlinski/Jimenez combination and incorporate the user interface or the a control unit on a handle to select different operation mode as taught by Kadamus as doing so allows a user to directly control one or more functions of the device which is closer to the user’s hand instead of an external computing device ([0093]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozel, Selig, and Thompson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pratten et al. (hereinafter ‘Pratten’, U.S. PGPub. No. 20180168729).
In regards to claim 10, Kozel/Selig/Thompson combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 and discussed above. Furthermore, the neutral electrode of Kozel/Selig/Thompson is capable of being a floating electrode when not engaged with a skin of a patient.
However, Kozel/Marchilinski combination does not disclose the device is part of a cardiac implantable device or of an implantable lead, wherein the cardiac implantable device is a cardiac pacemaker, a cardiac defibrillator or a contractility modulation device.
Pratten teaches a medical catheter integrating ablation, pace making, monitoring, and tissue imaging into a single catheter ([0230]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Kozel/Selig/Thompson combination and configure the catheter to deliver pacing, as taught by Pratten, as doing so allows the use of a single catheter and its system to be part of a cardiac implantable device or cardiac pacemaker for multiple operation functions which reduces the total cost of catheters required for an example procedure ([0230]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozel, Selig, Thompson, and Prattan as applied to claim 10/1 above and further in view of Varma (U.S. PGPub. No. 2015/0119671).
In regards to claim 11, Kozel/Marchlinski/Prattan combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 10/1 and discussed above. Kozel/Marchlinski/Prattan combination further discloses the electrophysiology device receives input data from the sensor device, wherein the input data is configured to be the instantaneous value of the differential resistance (note that the modified device is configured to calculate the impedance based upon the voltage and current which is transmitted internally of the modified device to determine electrode contact quality).
However, Kozel/Marchlinski combination does not disclose the electrophysiology device senses arrhythmia according to the sensing algorithm and detect an arrhythmia according to the detection algorithm.
Varma teaches computer-executable instructions that can be stored in a non-transitory memory and executed by a system comprising a processor for analyzing electrogram measured by a plurality of electrodes on a catheter inserted into a patient’s heart ([0005]-[0008]). Figure 1 shows a system block diagram depicting a mechanism of action (14) which employ one or more algorithms configured to assess electrical activity including voltage attenuation, conduction velocity and other measures of tissue conduction correlated to specific regions of the chamber to determine the sources of the arrhythmia ([0036]-[0041]). The aggregate evaluation of measures enables a whole chamber map revealing areas of inhomogeneity which is often a source of arrhythmias ([0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrophysiology device Kozel/Selig/Thompson combination which integrates the cardiac implantable device as per Patton, and utilize one or more algorithms via measuring electrical activities as taught by Varma, as doing so allows the device to assess electrical activity of the electrocardiogram and determine the sources of the arrhythmia ([0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 12, Kozel discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 11/10/1 and discussed above.
Selig discloses differential resistance or change in impedance is merely for determining the electrode contact quality. In addition, Marchlinski et al. (hereinafter ‘Marchlinkski’, U.S. Pat. No. 5,447,529) discloses that the change in impedance which reads on the instantaneous differential resistance is used to assess effectiveness of tissue ablation (col. 2, ln. 54-68).
Taken together, the concept of measuring voltage and current measurements of the neutral electrode and to measure voltage and current values, determine its relationship or input value of the instantaneous resistance to define an arrhythmia or a predisposition to an arrhythmia is not taught by the prior art. There is no motivation from the prior art to modify the impedance measurement used for contact quality assessment and/or lesion efficacy for determining an arrhythmia or a predisposition to an arrhythmia based upon when the instantaneous differential resistance is or turns negative or a negative differential resistance.
Accordingly, claim 13 is allowable as being dependent on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHWA KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794 12/11/2025