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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 12th, 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed November 18th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed February 12th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 & 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments and previous interpretation of the current prior art of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly disclosed claim limitations and a new interpretation of the current prior art of record.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 9 that Reinders nowhere discloses "providing an indication on the display of a degree of alignment between a real-time location of the plurality of electrodes as shown with respect to the catheter icon and the multiplicity of the locations of the ablated sites," the Examiner respectfully disagrees on the grounds that Reinders does teach this, as detailed in the updated rejection, below. Additionally, the “indication on the display of a degree of alignment” is being interpreted broadly such that it could be either a human (the user) or machine judgement such that a human looking at ablation locations, electrodes and a catheter on a display is providing an indication since the display is showing each elements location relative to each other.
The following new grounds of rejection are set forth:
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reinders et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20230346468, earliest effective filing date & previously cited), herein referred to as “Reinders”.
Regarding claim 1, Reinders teaches a method ([0002]: Aspects of this disclosure generally are related to systems and methods that facilitate tissue treatment based on transducer-to-tissue proximity information), comprising:
registering a multiplicity of locations of ablated sites of an organ of a human subject ([0176]: In FIG. 9D, graphical elements 912 each correspond to a part of a lesion formed in response to the delivery of the first high voltage pulse set; see also Figs. 9A-9E);
manipulating a catheter having a plurality of electrodes in proximity to the organ, the plurality of electrodes being configured to further ablate selected sites of the organ (see Figs. 9A-9E; [0151]: FIG. 9A shows at least part of a graphical user interface including a display of a 3D graphical representation 900A that includes a transducer-based device representation 901 (e.g., a representation of at least part of a transducer-based device similar to that shown in FIGS. 4 and 6) in a representation of an envelope 902 generated at least in part from location information determined based at least on a location signal set provided by a device location tracking system (e.g., 260A)); and
rendering on a display an organ icon showing the organ (envelope 902) and the multiplicity of the locations of the ablated sites ([0151]: FIG. 9A shows at least part of a graphical user interface including a display of a 3D graphical representation 900A that includes a transducer-based device representation 901; [0176]: In FIG. 9D, graphical elements 912 each correspond to a part of a lesion formed in response to the delivery of the first high voltage pulse set), and a catheter icon showing the plurality of electrodes (transducers 905; [0161]: transducer-based device representation 901; [0099]: a number of electrodes or ablation transducers (e.g., ablation transducers configured to cause thermal ablation or ablation transducers configured to cause PFA)), and providing an indication on the display of a degree of alignment between a real-time location of the plurality of electrodes as shown with respect to the catheter icon and the multiplicity of the locations of the ablated sites ([0248]: In other embodiments, some movement of at least some part of the transducer-based device (e.g., 200, 300, 400) may occur between the delivery of the first high voltage pulse set (e.g., per block 802A) and the delivery of the second high voltage pulse set (e.g., per block 810A). In some cases, the movement may essentially be such that each of the first high voltage pulse set and the second high voltage pulse set is applied to a same or substantially the same tissue region, but the first high voltage pulse set and the second high voltage pulse set are applied under different proximity conditions with respect to the tissue region (e.g., as described above in this disclosure). In other cases, the movement may essentially be such that each of the first high voltage pulse set and the second high voltage pulse set do not completely overlap the same tissue region, or respective lesion portions formed by each of the first high voltage pulse set and the second high voltage pulse set do not completely overlap. This may occur, in some embodiments, when movement of the at least the part of the transducer-based device includes a component of movement laterally away from the tissue region, or a movement of the at least the part of the transducer-based device includes a positioning away from the tissue region and then a repositioning back toward the tissue region to apply the second high voltage pulse set. Such repositioning may occur, for example, if a user (e.g., health care practitioner) applies the first voltage pulse set to the tissue region and then positions at least part of the transducer-based device (e.g., 200, 300, 400) away from the tissue region (for example, as may be the case when moving from the state of FIG. 9B to the state of FIG. 9D or from the state of FIG. 9C to the state of FIG. 9E) and then the user decides that the quality of the lesion (represented by graphical elements 912 in FIGS. 9D and 9E) formed at the tissue region should be or can be further enhanced with the application of an additional high voltage pulse set; wherein “an indication on the display of a degree of alignment” is being interpreted broadly to describe any representation such that depicting the electrodes, the catheter and the ablated sites are seen as meeting the limitation and wherein looking at Figs. 9B > 9D or 9C to 9E, the indication is a visual depiction wherein the electrodes are aligned but then no longer aligned & there is a real-time depiction of the electrodes relative the catheter, see also [0248-0249]).
Regarding claim 6, Reinders teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes are configured to further ablate using at least one of a radiofrequency current and irreversible electroporation ([0099]: a number of electrodes or ablation transducers (e.g., ablation transducers configured to cause thermal ablation or ablation transducers configured to cause PFA)).
Regarding claim 9, Reinders teaches an apparatus ([0002]: Aspects of this disclosure generally are related to systems and methods that facilitate tissue treatment based on transducer-to-tissue proximity information, according to some embodiments of the present invention), comprising:
a display device (a display device system 332);
a catheter (a catheter or transducer-based device 200, 300, or 400) having a plurality of electrodes configured to ablate selected sites of an organ of a human subject ([0099]: a number of electrodes or ablation transducers (e.g., ablation transducers configured to cause thermal ablation or ablation transducers configured to cause PFA)); and
a processor (controller 324), configured to:
register a multiplicity of locations of ablated sites of the organ ([0176]: In FIG. 9D, graphical elements 912 each correspond to a part of a lesion formed in response to the delivery of the first high voltage pulse set);
record manipulations of the catheter in proximity to the organ (see Figs. 9A-9F; [0151]: FIG. 9A shows at least part of a graphical user interface including a display of a 3D graphical representation 900A that includes a transducer-based device representation 901 (e.g., a representation of at least part of a transducer-based device similar to that shown in FIGS. 4 and 6) in a representation of an envelope 902 generated at least in part from location information determined based at least on a location signal set provided by a device location tracking system (e.g., 260A));
render on the display device an organ icon (envelope 902) showing the organ and the multiplicity of the locations of the ablated sites ([0151]: FIG. 9A shows at least part of a graphical user interface including a display of a 3D graphical representation 900A that includes a transducer-based device representation 901; [0176]: In FIG. 9D, graphical elements 912 each correspond to a part of a lesion formed in response to the delivery of the first high voltage pulse set), and a catheter icon showing the plurality of electrodes (transducer-based device representation 901 & transducers 905; [0161]: transducer-based device representation 901; [0099]: a number of electrodes or ablation transducers (e.g., ablation transducers configured to cause thermal ablation or ablation transducers configured to cause PFA)); and
provide an indication on the display device of a degree of alignment between a real-time location of the plurality of electrodes as shown with respect to the catheter icon and the multiplicity of the locations of the ablated sites ([0248]: In other embodiments, some movement of at least some part of the transducer-based device (e.g., 200, 300, 400) may occur between the delivery of the first high voltage pulse set (e.g., per block 802A) and the delivery of the second high voltage pulse set (e.g., per block 810A). In some cases, the movement may essentially be such that each of the first high voltage pulse set and the second high voltage pulse set is applied to a same or substantially the same tissue region, but the first high voltage pulse set and the second high voltage pulse set are applied under different proximity conditions with respect to the tissue region (e.g., as described above in this disclosure). In other cases, the movement may essentially be such that each of the first high voltage pulse set and the second high voltage pulse set do not completely overlap the same tissue region, or respective lesion portions formed by each of the first high voltage pulse set and the second high voltage pulse set do not completely overlap. This may occur, in some embodiments, when movement of the at least the part of the transducer-based device includes a component of movement laterally away from the tissue region, or a movement of the at least the part of the transducer-based device includes a positioning away from the tissue region and then a repositioning back toward the tissue region to apply the second high voltage pulse set. Such repositioning may occur, for example, if a user (e.g., health care practitioner) applies the first voltage pulse set to the tissue region and then positions at least part of the transducer-based device (e.g., 200, 300, 400) away from the tissue region (for example, as may be the case when moving from the state of FIG. 9B to the state of FIG. 9D or from the state of FIG. 9C to the state of FIG. 9E) and then the user decides that the quality of the lesion (represented by graphical elements 912 in FIGS. 9D and 9E) formed at the tissue region should be or can be further enhanced with the application of an additional high voltage pulse set; wherein “an indication on the display of a degree of alignment” is being interpreted broadly to describe any representation such that depicting the electrodes, the catheter and the ablated sites are seen as meeting the limitation and wherein looking at Figs. 9B > 9D or 9C to 9E, the indication is a visual depiction wherein the electrodes are aligned but then no longer aligned & there is a real-time depiction of the electrodes relative the catheter, see also [0248-0249]).
Regarding claim 14, Reinders teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes are configured to ablate using at least one of a radiofrequency current and irreversible electroporation ([0099]: a number of electrodes or ablation transducers (e.g., ablation transducers configured to cause thermal ablation or ablation transducers configured to cause PFA)).
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 2, 4-5, 10 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinders as applied to claims 1 & 9, above, and further in view of Harlev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220096174, previously cited), herein referred to as “Harlev”.
Regarding claim 2, Reinders fails to disclose identifying a gap in the multiplicity of locations of the ablated sites, and, when the indication denotes there is good alignment, further manipulating the catheter so that at least one of the plurality of electrodes aligns with a section of the gap, and activating the at least one of the plurality of electrodes to ablate the section of the gap.
However, Harlev discloses identifying a gap in the multiplicity of locations of the ablated sites, and, when the indication denotes there is good alignment, further manipulating the catheter so that at least one of the plurality of electrodes aligns with a section of the gap, and activating the at least one of the plurality of electrodes to ablate the section of the gap ([0079]: A gap exists between therapy annotation 902 and 991. After identifying the gap, the interface unit 108 can modify a corresponding region 914 of the therapy contour 712 to visually depict the gap within the model 544 … a physician is quickly able to determine whether gaps exist between therapy annotations along a therapy contour 712 and/or can determine whether to position the tip section 124 of the medical device 104 over the gap (e.g., between two therapy annotations that are not connected) to deliver therapy and/or form a continuous region of therapy delivery; [0084]: the physician can quickly locate potential gaps in therapy delivery along a therapy contour by viewing the therapy map 1030. In these embodiments, the physician can, after reviewing signals measured in the region 1035 and/or performing additional confirmation maneuvers, position the tip section 124 of the medical device 104 against the surface 433 of the anatomical structure 432 at a location corresponding to the region 1035 and can deliver therapy to treat the corresponding tissue).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reinders to include the steps of Harlev for the purpose of gaps between the discrete regions formed during treatment can decrease the treatment's effectiveness, render the treatment entirely ineffective, and/or lead to other complications (Harlev: [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Reinders in view of Harlev discloses wherein identifying the gap comprises identifying from amongst the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites adjacent locations that are separated by greater than a preset distance (Harlev: [0079]: A gap exists between therapy annotation 902 and 991. After identifying the gap, the interface unit 108 can modify a corresponding region 914 of the therapy contour 712 to visually depict the gap within the model 544. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the interface unit 108 has increased the diameter of the region 914 of the therapy contour 712 and has displayed the region 914 in a one pattern and/or color (e.g., blue) instead of the another pattern and/or color (e.g., white). In this manner, a physician is quickly able to determine whether gaps exist between therapy annotations along a therapy contour 712 and/or can determine whether to position the tip section 124 of the medical device 104 over the gap (e.g., between two therapy annotations that are not connected) to deliver therapy and/or form a continuous region of therapy delivery; wherein the color change in annotation is seen as the identifying from amongst the registered locations adjacent locations that are separated by greater than a preset distance).
Regarding claim 5, Reinders in view of Harlev discloses wherein the organ comprises a pulmonary vein of the human subject (Reinders: [0161]: the bodily cavity is a cardiac cavity, and the port corresponding to region 902A represents a port of a pulmonary vein; also see Harlev Fig. 6), and wherein identifying the gap comprises fitting a closed curve to the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites (Harlev: therapy contour 712), and indicating on the display at least one site of the closed curve wherein adjacent locations of the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites are separated by a distance greater than a preset threshold distance (Harlev: [0079]: A gap exists between therapy annotation 902 and 991. After identifying the gap, the interface unit 108 can modify a corresponding region 914 of the therapy contour 712 to visually depict the gap within the model 544. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the interface unit 108 has increased the diameter of the region 914 of the therapy contour 712 and has displayed the region 914 in a one pattern and/or color (e.g., blue) instead of the another pattern and/or color (e.g., white). In this manner, a physician is quickly able to determine whether gaps exist between therapy annotations along a therapy contour 712 and/or can determine whether to position the tip section 124 of the medical device 104 over the gap (e.g., between two therapy annotations that are not connected) to deliver therapy and/or form a continuous region of therapy delivery; wherein the color change in annotation is seen as the identifying from amongst the registered locations adjacent locations that are separated by greater than a preset distance).
Regarding claim 10, Reinders fails to disclose the processor being configured to:
identify a gap in the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites, and, when the indication denotes there is good alignment,
record further manipulations of the catheter so that at least one of the plurality of electrodes aligns with a section of the gap, and
activate the at least one of the plurality of electrodes to ablate the section of the gap.
However, Harlev discloses the processor (a processing unit 109 (e.g., one or more processors)) being configured to:
identify a gap in the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites, and, when the indication denotes there is good alignment,
record further manipulations of the catheter so that at least one of the plurality of electrodes aligns with a section of the gap, and
activate the at least one of the plurality of electrodes to ablate the section of the gap
([0079]: A gap exists between therapy annotation 902 and 991. After identifying the gap, the interface unit 108 can modify a corresponding region 914 of the therapy contour 712 to visually depict the gap within the model 544 … a physician is quickly able to determine whether gaps exist between therapy annotations along a therapy contour 712 and/or can determine whether to position the tip section 124 of the medical device 104 over the gap (e.g., between two therapy annotations that are not connected) to deliver therapy and/or form a continuous region of therapy delivery; [0084]: the physician can quickly locate potential gaps in therapy delivery along a therapy contour by viewing the therapy map 1030. In these embodiments, the physician can, after reviewing signals measured in the region 1035 and/or performing additional confirmation maneuvers, position the tip section 124 of the medical device 104 against the surface 433 of the anatomical structure 432 at a location corresponding to the region 1035 and can deliver therapy to treat the corresponding tissue).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Reinders to include the processor of Harlev for the purpose of gaps between the discrete regions formed during treatment can decrease the treatment's effectiveness, render the treatment entirely ineffective, and/or lead to other complications (Harlev: [0069]).
Regarding claim 12, Reinders in view of Harlev discloses wherein identifying the gap comprises identifying from amongst the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites adjacent locations that are separated by greater than a preset distance (Harlev: [0079]: A gap exists between therapy annotation 902 and 991. After identifying the gap, the interface unit 108 can modify a corresponding region 914 of the therapy contour 712 to visually depict the gap within the model 544. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the interface unit 108 has increased the diameter of the region 914 of the therapy contour 712 and has displayed the region 914 in a one pattern and/or color (e.g., blue) instead of the another pattern and/or color (e.g., white). In this manner, a physician is quickly able to determine whether gaps exist between therapy annotations along a therapy contour 712 and/or can determine whether to position the tip section 124 of the medical device 104 over the gap (e.g., between two therapy annotations that are not connected) to deliver therapy and/or form a continuous region of therapy delivery; wherein the color change in annotation is seen as the identifying from amongst the registered locations adjacent locations that are separated by greater than a preset distance).
Regarding claim 13, Reinders in view of Harlev discloses wherein the organ comprises a pulmonary vein of the human subject (Reinders: [0161]: the bodily cavity is a cardiac cavity, and the port corresponding to region 902A represents a port of a pulmonary vein; also see Harlev Fig. 6), and wherein identifying the gap comprises fitting a closed curve to the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites (Harlev: therapy contour 712), and indicating on the display device at least one site of the closed curve wherein adjacent locations of the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites are separated by a distance greater than a preset threshold distance (Harlev: [0079]: A gap exists between therapy annotation 902 and 991. After identifying the gap, the interface unit 108 can modify a corresponding region 914 of the therapy contour 712 to visually depict the gap within the model 544. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the interface unit 108 has increased the diameter of the region 914 of the therapy contour 712 and has displayed the region 914 in a one pattern and/or color (e.g., blue) instead of the another pattern and/or color (e.g., white). In this manner, a physician is quickly able to determine whether gaps exist between therapy annotations along a therapy contour 712 and/or can determine whether to position the tip section 124 of the medical device 104 over the gap (e.g., between two therapy annotations that are not connected) to deliver therapy and/or form a continuous region of therapy delivery; wherein the color change in annotation is seen as the identifying from amongst the registered locations adjacent locations that are separated by greater than a preset distance).
Claims 3 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinders and Harlev as applied to claims 2 & 10 above, and further in view of Hareland (U.S. Pub. No. 20180064494, previously cited), herein referred to as “Hareland”.
Regarding claim 3, Reinders in view of Harlev fail to disclose wherein the multiplicity of the locations of the ablated sites define an ablation site plane, and the plurality of the electrodes define an electrode plane, the method further comprising that a position and an orientation of the ablation site plane and the electrode plane correspond for the good alignment.
However, Hareland discloses wherein the multiplicity of the locations of the ablated sites define an ablation site plane ([0031]: plane P.sub.1 that is the centroid 72 location, and may extend away from the pulmonary vein ostium and into the left atrium), and the plurality of the electrodes define an electrode plane ([0033]: In other words, the center/centroid 74 of the treatment element 30 (x.sub.b, y.sub.b, z.sub.b) may be calculated to be normal to the surface of the plane P.sub.1, passing through the centroid 72 of the pulmonary vein ostium; see equation [00012]), the method further comprising that a position and an orientation of the ablation site plane and the electrode plane correspond for the good alignment ([0040]: Finally, in FIG. 7, the display may allow the user to visualize the device 12 positioned at the optimal treatment location, wherein the navigation electrodes 38a, 38b are properly aligned with the graphical indicators 78a, 78b, respectively). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reinders in view of Harlev to include the steps of Hareland for the purpose of alignment may help ensure that a circular ablation lesion is created at the pulmonary vein ostium (Hareland: [0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Reinders in view of Harlev fails to disclose wherein the multiplicity of the locations of the ablated sites define an ablation site plane, and the plurality of the electrodes define an electrode plane, so that a position and an orientation of the ablation site plane and the electrode plane correspond for the good alignment.
However, Hareland discloses wherein the multiplicity of the locations of the ablated sites define an ablation site plane ([0031]: plane P.sub.1 that is the centroid 72 location, and may extend away from the pulmonary vein ostium and into the left atrium), and the plurality of the electrodes define an electrode plane ([0033]: In other words, the center/centroid 74 of the treatment element 30 (x.sub.b, y.sub.b, z.sub.b) may be calculated to be normal to the surface of the plane P.sub.1, passing through the centroid 72 of the pulmonary vein ostium; see equation [00012]), so that a position and an orientation of the ablation site plane and the electrode plane correspond for the good alignment ([0040]: Finally, in FIG. 7, the display may allow the user to visualize the device 12 positioned at the optimal treatment location, wherein the navigation electrodes 38a, 38b are properly aligned with the graphical indicators 78a, 78b, respectively). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Reinders in view of Harlev to include the processor of Hareland for the purpose of alignment may help ensure that a circular ablation lesion is created at the pulmonary vein ostium (Hareland: [0040]).
Claims 7 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinders as applied to claims 1 & 9, above, and further in view of Papini (U.S. Pub. No. 20210330213, previously cited), herein referred to as “Papini”.
Regarding claim 7, Reinders fails to disclose wherein the catheter comprises a lasso catheter.
However, Papini wherein the catheter comprises a lasso catheter (see fig. 2A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reinders to comprise a lasso catheter, as taught by Papini, for the purpose of enabling the catheter to be used in an electrophysiology procedure to help doctors understand a nature of abnormal heart rhythms (e.g., arrhythmias) (Papini: [0039]).
Regarding claim 15, Reinders fails to disclose wherein the catheter comprises a lasso catheter.
However, Papini wherein the catheter comprises a lasso catheter (see fig. 2A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Reinders to comprise a lasso catheter, as taught by Papini, for the purpose of enabling the catheter to be used in an electrophysiology procedure to help doctors understand a nature of abnormal heart rhythms (e.g., arrhythmias) (Papini: [0039]).
Claims 8 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinders as applied to claims 1 & 9, above, and further in view of Govari et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190175265, previously cited), herein referred to as “Govari”).
Regarding claim 8, Reinders fails to disclose wherein the indication comprises at least one of respective numerical values of distances between the plurality of the electrodes and the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites and a color indicative of the respective numerical values of the distances between the plurality of electrodes.
However, Govari discloses wherein the indication comprises at least one of respective numerical values of distances between the plurality of the electrodes and the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites ([0083]: In some embodiments, electrodes 52 are identified in diagram 41 with integer numbers 92 displayed in fields 90. Attached to fields 90 are fields 94 that display respective estimated heights 96 of electrodes 52 above the esophagus. Fields 94 may display heights 96 in centimeters and/or millimeters, for example; wherein this limitation is interpreted as solely a display of a distance between two points for a collection of objects (electrodes & portions of tissue) such that the display and processor capable of displaying distances is seen as meeting the claims’ limitations) and a color indicative of the respective numerical values of the distances between the plurality of electrodes ([0085]: the GUI may include various highlighting features, such as colors or flashing to alert the physician). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reinders to include the steps of Govari for the purpose of enabling a physician to use the information in the course of planning the ablation treatment (Govari: [0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Reinders fails to disclose wherein the indication comprises at least one of respective numerical values of distances between the plurality of the electrodes and the multiplicity of locations of the ablated sites and a color indicative of the respective numerical values of distances between the plurality of electrodes.
However, Govari discloses wherein the indication comprises at least one of respective numerical values of distances between the plurality of the electrodes and the multiplicity of locations of ablated sites ([0083]: In some embodiments, electrodes 52 are identified in diagram 41 with integer numbers 92 displayed in fields 90. Attached to fields 90 are fields 94 that display respective estimated heights 96 of electrodes 52 above the esophagus. Fields 94 may display heights 96 in centimeters and/or millimeters, for example; wherein this limitation is interpreted as solely a display of a distance between two points for a collection of objects (electrodes & portions of tissue) such that the display and processor capable of displaying distances is seen as meeting the claims’ limitations) and a color indicative of the respective numerical values of the distances between the plurality of electrodes ([0085]: the GUI may include various highlighting features, such as colors or flashing to alert the physician). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reinders to include the steps of Govari for the purpose of enabling a physician to use the information in the course of planning the ablation treatment (Govari: [0038]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Abigail M Ziegler whose telephone number is (571)272-1991. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/ABIGAIL M ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights