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 Arguments
The 101 rejection has been withdrawn. The applicant has moved the subject matter from claim 2 into claims 1 and 15. Claim 2 was not rejected under 101 as it claims a selection of a subset of the electrodes, which puts the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1, 3-6, 15-16, and 18-22 are allowed. See the “allowable subject matter” section below for reasons for allowance.
Regarding claims 7-10 and 12-14, applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 10 of 11: “The Office Action relied on elements 602, 606, 608, and 610 of the Rosenberg reference for this limitation. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, visual element 606 is a "P" marking that identifies an electrode (e.g., electrodes 1, 2, and 3) as posterior; display element 608 provides an indication of electrode selection; and display element 610 is an "X" and indicates abnormal readings associated with the electrode (i.e., disconnected) (See Paragraphs [0056]-[0058]). Visual element 602 is a contour that indicates whether the electrode is in contact with tissue or not in contact with tissue. None of these visual displays is related to the visualization of a baseline collection state and in particular for communicating a categorized value of a baseline measurement”.
This is not persuasive because the black contours (figure 6A element 604, [0056]) and white contours (figure 6A element 602, [0056]) indicate a “baseline collection state” as they indicate whether the electrode is in touch with the tissue. The phrase “baseline” may be interpreted broadly without defining claim language. Thus, the examiner is interpreting “baseline” as whether the electrode is in touch with the tissue or not in touch. The black and white contours will communicate “a categorized value of a baseline measurement” as the black and white contours indicate whether the electrode is in touch with the tissue or not. In touch or not in touch is a “categorized value” (yes or no, 0 or 1, etc.).
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 7 recites the limitation "the baseline collection state" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (It appears the applicant did not add all the claim language “the one or more system states include a baseline collection state” from original claim 11 into claim 7. Adding the entirety of claim 11 would properly introduce "the baseline collection state").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 7-10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0082157 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Rosenberg”, in view of Ozeri et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0192742 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Ozeri”.
Regarding claim 7, Rosenberg discloses a user interface system for a catheter device, the user interface system comprising: a display (e.g. see figure 5 element 100), including a circular proximity display area (e.g. see figure 5 element 1010), the circular proximity display area including a plurality of circle sectors (e.g. see figure 6A elements 1-10), each of the plurality of circle sectors corresponding to one or more electrodes disposed on the catheter device (e.g. see figure 6A elements 1-10), the one or more system states include a baseline collection state (e.g. see figure 6A elements 602 and 604, [0056]. Note: The black and white contours indicate a “baseline collection state” as they indicate whether the electrode is in touch with the tissue. The phrase “baseline” may be interpreted broadly without defining claim language. Thus, the examiner is interpreting “baseline” as whether the electrode is in touch with the tissue or not in touch), wherein the baseline collection state displays a plurality of radial sections (e.g. see figure 6A elements 602 and 604) within each of the circular sectors (e.g. see figure 6A elements 1-10), each of the radial sections communicating a categorized value of a baseline measurement (e.g. see figure 6A elements 602 and 604, [0056]. Note: The black and white contours will communicate “a categorized value of a baseline measurement” as the black and white contours indicate whether the electrode is in touch with the tissue or not. In touch or not in touch is a “categorized value” (yes or no, 0 or 1, etc.)).
Rosenberg discloses the invention but is silent as to one or more control features configured to manipulate the catheter device and/or the one or more electrodes disposed on the catheter device, wherein the one or more control features are configured to select one or more system states. Ozeri teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in figure 3, [0052]-[0060] to provide a more intuitive electrode selection directly through the graphical user interface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the GUI to enable direct manipulation of the plurality of electrodes and direct manipulation of a treatment device as taught by Ozeri in the system of Rosenberg, since said modification would provide the predictable results of a more intuitive electrode selection directly through the graphical user interface.
Regarding claim 8, Rosenberg discloses the one or more system states include a tissue proximity state, wherein the tissue proximity state displays a categorized value of an electrode measurement in each of the plurality of circle sectors (e.g. see figure 6B, elements 602, 604, [0050], [0058]).
Regarding claim 9, Rosenberg discloses the tissue proximity state displays a relative value of an electrode measurement in each of the plurality of circle sectors (e.g. see figure 6B labels 606, 608, 610, [0058]).
Regarding claim 10, Rosenberg discloses a color segment communicates the categorized value of the electrode measurement (e.g. see figure 6B, elements 602, 604 [0050], [0058]), and a graph segment displays the relative value of the electrode measurement (e.g. see figure 6B labels 606, 608, 610, [0058]).
Regarding claim 12, Rosenberg discloses the one or more system states includes a therapy delivery state, wherein the therapy delivery state initiates an ablation treatment though the catheter device (e.g. see [0005], [0035]).
Regarding claim 14, Rosenberg discloses the invention but is silent as to the one or more control features are configured to select the one or more electrodes, wherein selection of an electrode selectively enables the electrode for therapy delivery. Ozeri teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in figure 3, [0052]-[0060] to provide a more intuitive electrode selection directly through the graphical user interface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the GUI to enable direct manipulation of the plurality of electrodes and direct manipulation of a treatment device as taught by Ozeri in the system of Rosenberg, since said modification would provide the predictable results of a more intuitive electrode selection directly through the graphical user interface.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg and Ozeri as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gross et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0202614 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Gross”.
Regarding claim 13, Rosenberg and Ozeri disclose the invention but are silent as the graphical user interface performs one or more gatekeeper functions. Gross teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0162], [0193], figures 7A and 12 to provide safer electrical stimulation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a gatekeeper safeguards as taught by Gross in the system of Rosenberg and Ozeri, since said modification would provide the predictable results of safer electrical stimulation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, 15-16, and 18-22 are allowed. The claim language now requires the particulars of the internal “graph areas” (figure 5 element 530) (see [0049] of the applicant’s printed publication Pub. No.: US 2024/0108240 A1). In particular, the claim language now requires that the relative value (e.g. see figure 5 element 536) is displayed at a radial position based on a magnitude of a measured electrode contact value and the threshold line (e.g. see figure 5 element 534) is displayed at a radial position between the inner radius and the outer radius of each graph area corresponding with a threshold electrode contact value indicative of tissue contact. This corresponds to [0049], figure 5, elements 530 (graph area), 534 (threshold line), and 536 (current value bar). Note: The examiner is interpreting the phrase “radial position” as the radius relative to the center of a circle.
This configuration is not taught in Rosenberg as the tissue proximity data in figures 6A and 6B of Rosenberg does not have radial positioning of a current electrode that is based on a magnitude of a measured electrode contact value. The positioning of the displayed data in Rosenberg is not dependent on the electrode contact value. Nor is there a threshold line in Rosenberg that is positioned radially corresponding with a threshold electrode contact value indicative of tissue contact. Further, there would be no reason to modify Rosenberg with using radial positioning as an indicator scale of electrode proximity/contact as Rosenberg uses coloring and symbols (figures 6A and 6B, [0055]-[0058]) to communicate tissue proximity, not radial positioning.
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 PHILIP C EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-1804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00-5:00 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/P.C.E/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights