DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 6 and 21-22 and claims dependent thereon 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 6 recites the limitation "the second weighted patient reference sensor location" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 6 to depend off of claim 5 and will be interpreting it as such.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “the computing device” in line with claim 20.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “the computing device” in line with claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim(s) recites “determining a position sensor location of the position sensor from the position sensor signal;”
“determining a patient reference sensor location of the patient reference sensor from the patient reference sensor signal;”
“determining a weight for the patient reference sensor location, based on a comparison between a movement of the position sensor location and a movement of the patient reference sensor location;”
“determining an average of the patient reference sensor location; and “
“determining a compensation for the patient respiration, based on the weighted patient reference sensor location and the average of the patient reference sensor location.” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“receiving a position sensor signal from a position sensor disposed on a catheter;
receiving a patient reference sensor signal from a patient reference sensor;”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolutiondata gathering activities.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of correcting a position value in view of contextualizing reference data and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-14 also do not recite patent eligible subject matter as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim(s) recites “determining a position sensor location of the position sensor from the position sensor signal;”
“determining a plurality of electrode patch locations of the plurality of electrode patches, from the plurality of electrode patch signals;”
“determining a plurality of respective weights for the plurality of electrode patch locations, based on a comparison between a movement of the position sensor location and a movement of each of the plurality of electrode patch locations; and”
“determining a compensation for the patient respiration, based on the weighted electrode patch location.” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“receiving a position sensor signal from a position sensor disposed on a catheter;”
“receiving a plurality of electrode patch signals from a plurality of respective electrode patches disposed on a body of the patient;”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolutiondata gathering activities.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of correcting a position value in view of contextualizing reference data and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 16-19 also do not recite patent eligible subject matter as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim(s) recites “determine a position sensor location of the position sensor from the position sensor signal;”
“receive a patient reference sensor signal from a patient reference sensor;”
“determine an electrode patch location of the electrode patch, from the electrode patch signal;”
“determine a patient reference sensor location of the patient reference sensor from the patient reference sensor signal;”
“determine respective weights for the electrode patch location and the patient reference sensor location, based on a comparison between a movement of the position sensor location with respect to a movement of the electrode patch location and the patient reference sensor location; and”
“determine a compensation for the patient respiration, based on the weighted electrode patch location and the weighted patient reference sensor location.” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“receive a position sensor signal from a position sensor disposed on a catheter;”
“receive an electrode patch signal from an electrode patch disposed on a body of the patient;”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities.
Furthermore, computing devices are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of correcting a position value in view of contextualizing reference data and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 21-22 also do not recite patent eligible subject matter as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyrakh et al (US 2012/0172702) (“Koyrakh”).
Regarding Claim 1, Koyrakh teaches a method for performing patient respiration compensation (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0036]-[0038], [0099]), comprising:
receiving a position sensor signal from a position sensor disposed on a catheter ([0036]-[0038], [0042]-[0044] internal catheter electrode 17 acts as position sensor, providing a position sensor signal, in conjunction with electric fields applied from external electrode patches);
determining a position sensor location of the position sensor from the position sensor signal ([0036]-[0038], [0042]-[0044] relative location of the electrode 17 in three dimensions is identified with the patch data);
receiving a patient reference sensor signal from a patient reference sensor ([0058]-[0061] surface patch electrodes also act as patient reference sensors, providing a patient reference sensor signal, where these signals of patch impedance are evaluated to find motion artifact present from respiration and cardiac activity);
determining a patient reference sensor location of the patient reference sensor from the patient reference sensor signal ([0050]-[0052] patient reference sensor location / surface electrode patch location is determined in view of their impedances setting the position values of X-, Y-, and Z-axes, [0073]-[0074]);
determining a weight for the patient reference sensor location, based on a comparison between a movement of the position sensor location and a movement of the patient reference sensor location ([0073]-[0074], [0085]-[0088] a weight for the patient reference sensor location is determined, based on a comparison of movement of the position sensor location and a movement of the patient reference sensor location, as seen in their various electrical characteristics);
determining an average of the patient reference sensor location ([0066]-[0068] average of the patch impedance found to identify artifacts, where the patient impedance reflects the patient reference sensor location); and
determining a compensation for the patient respiration, based on the weighted patient reference sensor location and the average of the patient reference sensor location ([0099]-[0107], [0123]-[0127] weights are found for a specific moment in time, and dynamic compensation is required after a certain amount of time to maintain weight relevance. Finding new weight will require the average of the patient reference sensor location, and the old weight are compared to the new weight to optimize model’s learning parameter from predicted patient behavior).
Regarding Claim 2, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the weight for the patient reference sensor location is increased as a correlation in the movement between the position sensor location and the patient reference sensor location increases ([0073] principal component analysis is applied between patch impedance data and electrode location data as they commonly share respiration and cardiac artifact, with these artifact components exhibiting the most correlation between patches and the catheter electrode, [0083]-[0084] this in confirmed in Figs. 3-4, [0086] the weights are then found to subtract the influence of these artifacts. Thus a weight is increased as patch impedance data and electrode location data show greater correlation as the greater correlation indicates that both are experiencing a common respiration and/or cardiac artifact that will require a greater weight to subtract out the artifact influence).
Regarding Claim 3, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the weight for the patient reference sensor location is decreased as a correlation in movement between the position sensor location and the patient reference sensor location decreases ([0073] principal component analysis is applied between patch impedance data and electrode location data as they commonly share respiration and cardiac artifact, with these artifact components exhibiting the most correlation between patches and the catheter electrode, [0083]-[0084] this in confirmed in Figs. 3-4, [0086] the weights are then found to subtract the influence of these artifacts. Thus a weight is decreased as patch impedance data and electrode location data show lesser correlation as the lesser correlation indicates that they are not experiencing a common respiration and/or cardiac artifact that requires a greater weight to subtract out the artifact influence).
Regarding Claim 4, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising compensating for the patient respiration by subtracting the compensation for the patient respiration from the position sensor location of the position sensor (See Claim 1 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 8, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the patient reference signal from the patient reference sensor includes receiving the patient reference signal from a magnetic patient reference sensor ([0150]-[0151] the positioning system based on generating an electric field from surface patches, measuring voltage at a catheter electrode, and identifying relative location of the catheter from the modulated electrical signals can also be equivalently performed with an included magnetic field based positioning sub-system, where the compensation steps previously cited would be applied for a magnetic field position sensor, thus making the impedance patches a magnetic sensor’s patient reference).
Regarding Claim 9, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises receiving a signal from an electrode patch ([0151] surface electrode patches can be used for the same purpose in compensating magnetic positioning system).
Regarding Claim 10, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 8, the method further comprising determining whether the patient reference signal from the magnetic patient reference sensor is valid ([0150] system identifies a distortion of the established magnetic field from the introduction of a metal object, and automatically performs the steps of compensation. Thus the system has an automated validity check for a magnetic patient reference sensor).
Regarding Claim 11, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 10, wherein determining whether the patient reference signal from the magnetic patient reference sensor is valid includes determining whether the patient reference signal from the magnetic patient reference sensor is valid, based on whether the magnetic patient reference sensor has been subjected to a metallic distortion (See Claim 10 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 12, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising determining the compensation for the patient respiration, based on the signal received from the electrode patch (See Claim 11 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 13, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the position sensor signal from the position sensor disposed on the catheter includes receiving a magnetic based positioning signal from the position sensor ([0150]-[0151] the positioning system based on generating an electric field from surface patches, measuring voltage at a catheter electrode, and identifying relative location of the catheter from the modulated electrical signals can also be equivalently performed with an included magnetic field based positioning sub-system, where the compensation steps previously cited would be applied for a magnetic field position sensor. Correspondingly, coil sensor at the catheter provides a magnetic based positioning signal).
Regarding Claim 14, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the position sensor signal from the position sensor disposed on the catheter includes receiving an impedance based positioning signal from the position sensor (See Claim 1 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 15, Koyrakh teaches a method for performing patient respiration compensation (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0036]-[0038], [0099]), comprising:
receiving a position sensor signal from a position sensor disposed on a catheter ([0036]-[0038], [0042]-[0044] internal catheter electrode 17 acts as position sensor, providing a position sensor signal, in conjunction with electric fields applied from external electrode patches);
determining a position sensor location of the position sensor from the position sensor signal ([0036]-[0038], [0042]-[0044] relative location of the electrode 17 in three dimensions is identified with the patch data);
receiving a plurality of electrode patch signals from a plurality of respective electrode patches disposed on a body of the patient ([0036]-[0038], [0040], [0042]-[0044] plurality of surface patch electrodes, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, provide data to be measured over time to track catheter position);
determining a plurality of electrode patch locations of the plurality of electrode patches, from the plurality of electrode patch signals ([0050]-[0052] patient reference sensor location / surface electrode patch location is determined in view of their impedances setting the position values of X-, Y-, and Z-axes, [0073]-[0074]);
determining a plurality of respective weights for the plurality of electrode patch locations, based on a comparison between a movement of the position sensor location and a movement of each of the plurality of electrode patch locations ([0073]-[0074], [0085]-[0088] a weight for the patient reference sensor location is determined, based on a comparison of movement of the position sensor location and a movement of the patient reference sensor location, as seen in their various electrical characteristics, [0086] weights on a per axis basis and thus are particular to the electrode patch locations); and
determining a compensation for the patient respiration, based on the weighted electrode patch location ([0099]-[0107], [0123]-[0127] weights are found for a specific moment in time, and dynamic compensation is required after a certain amount of time to maintain weight relevance. Finding new weight will require the average of the patient reference sensor location, and the old weight are compared to the new weight to optimize model’s learning parameter from predicted patient behavior).
Regarding Claim 16, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 15, wherein receiving the position sensor signal from the position sensor includes receiving a position sensor signal from an electrode disposed on the catheter and a magnetic position sensor signal disposed on the catheter ([0150]-[0151] the positioning system based on generating an electric field from surface patches, measuring voltage at a catheter electrode, and identifying relative location of the catheter from the modulated electrical signals can also be equivalently performed with an included magnetic field based positioning sub-system, where the compensation steps previously cited would be applied for a magnetic field position sensor and the patient reference data being the magnetic coordinates of the surface electrode patches, [0152] where both systems used for position determination).
Regarding Claim 18, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising filtering the plurality of electrode patch locations ([0042] patch voltage data low pass filtered, [0043] this patch data used to determine electrode patch locations indicating the determined locations have been “filtered”).
Regarding Claim 19, Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising subtracting the compensation for the patient respiration from the location of the position sensor (See Claim 15 Rejection, [0086]).
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, 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-7, 17, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyrakh in view of Kornblau et al (US 2011/0105897) (“Kornblau”).
Regarding Claim 5, while Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches utilizing two different tracking subsystems ([0150]-[0151] impedance and magnetic tracking subsystems), Koyrakh fails to teach the method further comprising: receiving a second patient reference sensor signal from a second patient reference sensor; determining a second patient reference sensor location of the second patient reference sensor from the second patient reference sensor signal and determining a second weight for the second patient reference sensor location, based on a comparison between a movement of the position sensor location and a movement of the second patient reference sensor location.
However Kornblau teaches a hybrid localization of a catheter including a first impedance tracking subsystem and a second tracking subsystem (Abstract) where two different tracking subsystems may be used together and the result of the differences between an expected target in one tracking subsystem can be compared with the actual position in the other tracking subsystem to update parameters in the tracking prediction ([0059]-[0061], the updating specifically being of position correction values ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the hybrid localization system of Koyrakh to use the magnetic tracking system as a second patient reference system as taught by Kornblau for updating the position correction value (i.e. weights) in Koyrakh as this explains a unique benefit one gains from a hybrid localization system. And in using a magnetic tracking subsystem as another data reference source, the magnetic field transmitters and magnetic position sensor will be providing a second patient reference sensor signal from a second patient reference sensor; and providing a second patient reference sensor location of the second patient reference sensor from the second patient reference sensor signal.
Regarding Claim 6, Koyrakh and Kornblau teach the method of claim 5, wherein determining the compensation for the patient respiration further includes determining the compensation for the patient respiration based on the second weighted patient reference sensor location (See Claim 5 Rejection, compensation for the patient respiration would be based one the impedance compensation of Koyrakh and the hybrid localization comparison of Kornblau, Kornblau: [0083] the hybrid localization comparison and updating of calibration parameters leads to respiration specific calibration parameters to output the second weighted patient reference sensor location).
Regarding Claim 7, Koyrakh and Kornblau teach the method of claim 6, further comprising compensating for the patient respiration by subtracting the compensation for the patient respiration from the position sensor location of the position sensor, wherein the compensation for the patient respiration is based on the weighted patient reference sensor location and the second weighted patient reference sensor location (See Claim 6 Rejection, position compensation taught by Koyrakh is by subtraction and a final compensation in view of a second reference position would still logically be subtraction).
Regarding Claim 17, while Koyrakh teaches the method of claim 16, Koyrakh fails to teach the method further comprising filtering the position sensor signal and the magnetic position sensor signal with an Extended Kalman Filter.
However Kornblau teaches a hybrid localization of a catheter including a first impedance tracking subsystem and a second tracking subsystem (Abstract) where two different tracking subsystems may be used together and the result of the differences between an expected target in one tracking subsystem can be compared with the actual position in the other tracking subsystem to update parameters in the tracking prediction with the use of a Kalman filter ([0061]-0062] and [0059] notes that the parameters may be of position correction) and where the Kalman filtering may specifically be performed by an Extended Kalman filter ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the hybrid localization comparison between tracking subsystems of Kornblau to the hybrid localization of Koyrakh as a teaching of how the tracking subsystems can be used together to improve an overall tracking (i.e. by comparing a target in one to the actual data in the other and updating Koyrakh’s weights based on the difference). Further, it would be obvious to apply the Extended Kalman filter of Kornblau to the impedance tracking and the magnetic tracking in Koyrakh as Kornblau teaches it is a filter specifically suited for a comparison of different tracking subsystems where one will likely have a longer latency time than the other.
Regarding Claim 20, while Koyrakh teaches a system for performing patient respiration compensation (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0036]-[0038], [0099]), comprising:
a computing device comprising processor resources and memory resources, the memory resources storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor resources ([0040] computer system 20 includes a processing apparatus configured to perform many of the functions and operations described, [0155] using memory resources as is typical in the art), cause the processor resources to:
receive a position sensor signal from a position sensor disposed on a catheter ([0036]-[0038], [0042]-[0044] internal catheter electrode 17 acts as position sensor, providing a position sensor signal, in conjunction with electric fields applied from external electrode patches);
determine a position sensor location of the position sensor from the position sensor signal ([0036]-[0038], [0042]-[0044] relative location of the electrode 17 in three dimensions is identified with the patch data);
receive an electrode patch signal from an electrode patch disposed on a body of the patient ([0036]-[0038], [0040], [0042]-[0044] plurality of surface patch electrodes, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, provide data to be measured over time to track catheter position);
determine an electrode patch location of the electrode patch, from the electrode patch signal ([0050]-[0052] patient reference sensor location / surface electrode patch location is determined in view of their impedances setting the position values of X-, Y-, and Z-axes, [0073]-[0074]);
determine respective weights for the electrode patch location, based on a comparison between a movement of the position sensor location and a movement of the electrode patch location ([0073]-[0074], [0085]-[0088] a weight for the patient reference sensor location is determined, based on a comparison of movement of the position sensor location and a movement of the patient reference sensor location, as seen in their various electrical characteristics, [0086] weights on a per axis basis and thus are particular to the electrode patch locations); and
determining a compensation for the patient respiration, based on the weighted electrode patch location ([0099]-[0107], [0123]-[0127] weights are found for a specific moment in time, and dynamic compensation is required after a certain amount of time to maintain weight relevance. Finding new weight will require the average of the patient reference sensor location, and the old weight are compared to the new weight to optimize model’s learning parameter from predicted patient behavior); and
further teaches that the system can be a hybrid localization system ([0150]-[0152]), Koyrakh fails to teach causing the processer resources to:
receive a patient reference sensor signal from a patient reference sensor;
determine a patient reference sensor location of the patient reference sensor from the patient reference sensor signal;
determine respective weights for the electrode patch location and the patient reference sensor location, based on a comparison between a movement of the position sensor location with respect to a movement of the electrode patch location and the patient reference sensor location; and
determine a compensation for the patient respiration, based on the weighted electrode patch location and the weighted patient reference sensor location.
However Kornblau teaches a hybrid localization of a catheter including a first impedance tracking subsystem and a second tracking subsystem (Abstract) where two different tracking subsystems may be used together and the result of the differences between an expected target in one tracking subsystem can be compared with the actual position in the other tracking subsystem to update parameters in the tracking prediction ([0059]-[0061], the updating specifically being of position correction values ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the hybrid localization system of Koyrakh to use the magnetic tracking system as a second patient reference system as taught by Kornblau for updating the position correction value (i.e. weights) in Koyrakh as this explains a unique benefit one gains from a hybrid localization system. And in using a magnetic tracking subsystem as another data reference source, the magnetic field transmitters and magnetic position sensor will be providing a second patient reference sensor signal from a second patient reference sensor; and providing a second patient reference sensor location of the second patient reference sensor from the second patient reference sensor signal. Finally, it would be obvious that the compensation for the patient respiration, when based on the impedance compensation of Koyrakh and the hybrid localization comparison of Kornblau, would compensate based on both locations of the electrode patch and the weighted patient reference sensor as they both provide data on the movement deviations that may be susceptible to outside noise – specifically, the impedance tracking subsystem will shows errors if a second person touches the patient and the magnetic tracking subsystem is susceptible to metallic distortions from metal within the transmitted magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 21, Koyrakh and Kornblau teach the system of claim 20, and Kornblau further teaches the system comprising instructions executable by the processor to filter the patient reference sensor location and the electrode patch location ([0059]-[0062] Kalman filter applied to filter position data of different tracking subsystems when performing the hybrid localization comparison).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the Extended Kalman filter of Kornblau to the impedance tracking and the magnetic tracking in Koyrakh as Kornblau teaches it is a filter specifically suited for a comparison of different tracking subsystems where one will likely have a longer latency time than the other.
Regarding Claim 22, Koyrakh and Kornblau teach the system of claim 20, further comprising instructions executable by the processor to reduce the weight of the patient reference sensor location to zero in response to the patient reference signal being subjected to a metallic distortion (See Claim 20 Rejection, from Koyrakh [0150] that it is understood that metallic distortion renders magnetic position data invalid, hence why impedance compensation must be immediately applied. If you add the magnetic tracking subsystem as a position reference from the teachings of Kornblau, it would logically follow that situations of metallic distortion should no longer rely on magnetic reference position data).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIRO H PORTILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:15 pm.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/JAIRO H. PORTILLO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791