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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Massarwa et al. (US20130241929A1) fails to teach the limitation of “dynamically alter[ing] a transparency level in a sub-volume of the anatomical map of the organ surrounding the distal tip responsively to the tracked position” (see Remarks files 19 November 2025, pages 6-7). Specifically, Applicants assert that Massarwa teaches assigning a transparency level in advance, and so cannot teach dynamically altering a transparency level, as claimed. Examiner acknowledges certain embodiments of Massarwa teach “assigned values of visibility parameters” as discussed e.g. in paragraph 0030. However, in other embodiments, Massarwa also teaches that the visibility parameter (e.g. equivalent to the claimed “transparency level in a sub-volume of the anatomical map of the organ”) is determined as a function of proximity to elements of the same or of another sub-group (see Massarwa paragraph 0061). By setting the visibility level (i.e. claimed transparency level) as a function of location or proximity to elements of another sub-group of items to be displayed, Massarwa teaches “dynamically altering the transparency level” as claimed. Accordingly, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 3-5, 7, 8, 15-17, 19, and 20 are respectfully maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Massarwa et al (US20130241929A1), hereinafter referred to as Massarwa.
Regarding claim 3, Massarwa teaches a system, comprising:
a processor (FIG. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
574
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
teaches processing unit 42 and system processor 40), which is configured to:
receive, in an anatomical map of an organ (Massarwa, ¶ 4, “receiving a three-dimensional (3D) map of the body organ together with items of auxiliary information having respective location coordinates in a frame of reference of the 3D map”; teaches a 3D map of a body organ), a tracked position of a distal tip of a catheter that is moved within the organ and presented over the anatomical map (Massarwa, ¶ 34, “Typically, probe 24 comprises a catheter which is inserted into the body of a subject 26 during a mapping procedure performed by a user 28 of system 20.”; ¶ 41-42, “Probe tracker module 30 tracks sections of probe 24 while the probe is within subject 26. The tracker module typically tracks both the location and orientation of distal end 32 of probe 24, within the heart of subject 26. […] Using tracker module 30 processor 40 is able to measure locations of distal end 32, and form location coordinates of the locations in frame of reference 58 for construction of map 50. The location coordinates are assumed to be stored in a mapping module 56.”; teaches tracking a location of the probe, which comprises a catheter, within a heart and shows the location in the map of the heart); and
dynamically alter a transparency level in a sub-volume of the anatomical map of the organ surrounding the distal tip responsively to the tracked position (Massarwa. ¶ 61as discussed in “Response to Arguments” section above); and
a display (Massarwa, ¶ 35, “Results of the operations performed by processor 40 are provided to the professional on a screen 48. The screen displays a three-dimensional (3D) map 50 of heart 34, together with items 52 of auxiliary information related to the heart and superimposed on the map, while the heart is being investigated.”; teaches a screen that can display a 3D map of a heart), which is configured to display (i) the anatomical map using a first transparency level, and (ii) the sub-volume surrounding the distal tip using a second transparency level, different from the first transparency level (Massarwa. ¶ 67, “FIG. 5 illustrates a first application of flowchart 100 to produce a chart 54C. In chart 54C map 50A has had its relative visibility set so that the map is opaque, and map 50B has been set so that it is transparent. In addition, elements of a sub-group of catheter type items have had respective relative visibilities set according to the types of catheter in the sub-group, so that multi-probe catheters are visible. Thus icon 52D2 shows in chart 54C.”; teaches showing map 50A as opaque and map 50B as transparent).
Regarding claim 4, Massarwa teaches the system according to claim 3, wherein the organ comprises a heart (Massarwa, ¶ 35, “The screen displays a three-dimensional (3D) map 50 of heart 34, together with items 52 of auxiliary information related to the heart and superimposed on the map, while the heart is being investigated.”; teaches the 3D map being of specifically a heart) and the distal tip of the catheter comprises one or both of: (i) one or more sensing electrodes configured for sensing electro-anatomical signals when placed in contact with tissue of the heart (Massarwa, ¶ 33, “For simplicity and clarity, the following description, except where otherwise stated, assumes an investigative procedure wherein system 20 senses electrical signals from a heart 34, using a probe 24. A distal end 32 of the probe is assumed to have an electrode 22 for sensing the signals. Those having ordinary skill in the art will be able to adapt the description for multiple probes that may have one or more electrodes, as well as for signals produced by organs other than a heart.”; teaches the distal end of the probe having at least one electrode for sensing electrical signals from the heart), and (ii) one or more ablation electrodes configured to apply ablation energy when placed in contact with the tissue of the heart.
Regarding claim 5, Massarwa teaches the system according to claim 4, wherein the anatomical map comprises at least a tag (Massarwa, FIG. 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
883
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
¶ 35, “The screen displays a three-dimensional (3D) map 50 of heart 34, together with items 52 of auxiliary information related to the heart and superimposed on the map, while the heart is being investigated. In the description and in the claims, an item of auxiliary information comprises any property or element that is, or that can be, associated with a region of the organ under consideration. In the examples described herein, the organ comprises heart 34. Examples of items 52 are provided below.”; teaches the map of the heart with items 52 superimposed on the map) , which is displayed at a given location over the anatomical map and is indicative of an attribute of the heart at the given location (See FIG. 3: 52A, 52B1-3, 52C1-4; Massarwa, ¶ 43, “Examples of items 52 and associated information of the items that mapping module 56 is able to store, include, but are not limited to, those given in Table I below. For each item 52, mapping module 56 stores, as appropriate, location coordinates associated with the item.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”;
teaches items being superimposed onto the map which can be indicative of LAT, ablation sites, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, Massarwa teaches the system according to claim 4, wherein the first transparency level comprises an opaque view of an outer surface of the anatomical map for visualizing to a user a three-dimensional (3D) topography of the anatomical map (Massarwa, FIG. 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
886
749
media_image4.png
Greyscale
¶ 46, “In FIG. 2, a chart 54A illustrates parameters of a section of the heart that are drawn assuming that the heart is completely opaque, i.e., that the walls of the heart are non-transparent.”; teaches the walls of the heart being opaque).
Regarding claim 8, Massarwa teaches the system according to claim 4, wherein the second transparency level comprises a fully transparent view of an outer surface in the sub-volume of the anatomical map for displaying to a user a feature of the organ within the sub-volume surrounding the distal tip (Massarwa, ¶ 55, “In FIG. 3, a chart 54B illustrates similar parameters to the section of the heart shown in FIG. 2. Thus, as for chart 54A, chart 54B is based on the intersection of first 3D map 50A and second 3D map 50B, to form combined 3D map 50C. However, in contrast to chart 54A, chart 54B assumes that both the first and the second maps are transparent, so that all parts of both maps are visible.”; teaches both map sections 50A and 50B to be transparent and show all parts/features of the organ map).
Regarding claims 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20, arguments made in rejecting claims 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are analogous, respectively.
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.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massarwa as applied to claims 3-5, 7, 8, 15-17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Acker et al. (US6332089B1), hereinafter referred to as Acker.
Regarding claim 6, Massarwa teaches the system according to claim 5.
Massarwa fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to alter a size of the sub-volume responsively to a distance between the tracked position of the distal tip and a position of the tag.
Acker teaches wherein the processor is configured to alter a size of the sub-volume responsively to a distance between the tracked position of the distal tip and a position of the tag (Acker, col. 20 lines 54-64, “Distance between the tip of the instrument probe and the site probe is represented by the size of the site probe representation 1102 relative to the instrument probe representation 1104. Preferably, the instrument probe representation has a fixed size, whereas the site probe representation grows as the distance decreases and shrinks as the distance decreases. In a particularly preferred arrangement, the site probe representation completely fills circle 1108 when the tip is at the site probe. Other representations of distance, such as alphanumeric display 1114 and bar graph 1116 are also provided.”; teaches the site probe representation increasing as the distance between the instrument probe tip and site probe get closer to each other).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement the distance measuring technique and size changing technique as taught by Acker with the probe, items, and 3D map of Massarwa.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “provide accurate guidance of a probe” and “provid[e] probe guidance information to the physician in a form which can be readily assimilated and used by the physician” (Acker, col. 3 lines 17-26).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Massarwa with Acker to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, arguments made in rejecting claim 6 are analogous.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massarwa as applied to claims 3-5, 7, 8, 15-17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Cohen et al. (US20190000540A1), hereinafter referred to as Cohen.
Regarding claim 9, Massarwa teaches the system according to claim 3.
Massarwa fails to teach wherein when the distal tip is moved and reaching a given position within the organ, the processor is configured to dynamically alter the transparency level within two seconds after the distal tip has reached the given position.
Cohen teaches wherein when the distal tip is moved and reaching a given position within the organ, the processor is configured to dynamically alter the transparency level within two seconds after the distal tip has reached the given position (Cohen, FIG. 5:
PNG
media_image5.png
945
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
¶ 54-55, “FIG. 5 is a flow diagram of an example visual noise reduction with glass view procedure 500 for implementing a glass state view in real-time 3D cardiac imaging, as may be used in a cardiac mapping and ablation system. At 502, anatomical data of the cardiac structure may be acquired and used to generate a 3D map (model or image) of the cardiac structure and display the 3D map on a visual display. For example, the 3D model of the cardiac structure may be generated using a real-time 3D cardiac location and mapping system such as the CARTO® 3 System. At 504, visual data may be generated and displayed on the 3D map of the cardiac structure during a cardiac procedure (e.g., a diagnostic or therapeutic cardiac procedure such as mapping and ablation). Examples of visual data may include, but are not limited to include, the following information: objects (e.g., catheters, other devices, 3D synthetic heart model, etc.); points and/or tags (e.g., points to identify points of interest that may be automatically added by the system or added manually by the operator); and/or color-coding information (e.g., to show electrical activity, anatomical temperature, device temperature, etc.).”; teaches real-time 3d cardiac imaging with a glass state (transparent) view that can display catheters in the heart).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement the glass state view in real-time 3D cardiac imaging as taught by Cohen onto the 3D map and probe of Massarwa.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “to visualize the exact position and orientation of a catheter within the heart and act as an advanced navigation system to enable the electrophysiologist to visualize and carefully guide the catheter to administer the RF energy in the appropriate locations” (Cohen, ¶ 12).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Massarwa with Cohen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
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 Stephen R Koziol whose telephone number is (408)918-7630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM Pacific Time.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/Stephen R Koziol/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights