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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
The current office action is made responsive to claims filed 04/30/2026.
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment of claims 1, 8, 10-11, 18, and 20.
Acknowledgement is made to the cancellation of claims 5 and 15.
Any claims listed above as cancelled have sufficiently overcome any rejections set forth in any of the prior office actions.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 16-20 are pending. A complete action on the merits appears below.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20170120048 A1) in view of Zeidan (US 20190099078 A1).
Regarding claim 11, He teaches a system ([0027]), comprising:
an interface configured to receive at least one of locations of multiple ablation sites ([0035]); and
a processor ([0040]), which is configured to:
cause ablation to be performed at the multiple ablation sites ([0047], [0050]);
categorize the multiple ablation sites according to predefined categories ([0040]);
graphically encode the multiple ablation sites on a map according to their respective categories by assigning distinct graphical attributes to respective ablation tags corresponding to the multiple ablation sites such that the graphical attributes of each ablation tag indicate the specific region in which the corresponding ablation site is located ([0036], [0040] teach this limitation as broadly as is currently claimed, as the displayed category provides the region of the ablation site of the electrode, such as engaging tissue for example); and
display the graphically encoded anatomical map to a user ([0035]).
However, He fails to teach the predefined categories as comprising specific anatomical regions of the heart and the map as being an anatomical map with coordinates of one or more anatomical regions over a surface of a heart.
He further teaches generating a virtual map of electrodes positioned within any hollow organ and received information from those electrodes to categorize said electrodes, such as by the region within the anatomy, i.e. engaging or not engaging patient tissue (Abstract, [0036], [0040]).
Zeidan teaches using electrical activity of the heart, such as that received by electrodes, to determine an anatomical region of the heart, and using said region to determine the targeting for ablation ([0050]).
Zeidan further teaches displaying the anatomical regions of the heart as categories and the information received by and of the electrodes on the surface of the heart so as to determine regions within the heart which ore are a potential target for ablation ([0041]- [0043]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the known use of displaying the position of an electrode over a surface of a heart where the heart and the position of the electrode display regions within the heart, as is taught by Zeidan, into the device which displays the position and information of an electrode within an organ of a patient as is taught by He, to produce the predictable result of determining regions within an organ, such as the heart, which are potential targets for ablation, as is taught by Zeidan, as it has been held that the incorporation and/or combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Regarding claim 12, He teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to receive locations of multiple ablation sites by receiving at least one of planned and formed ablation sites ([0036], [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, He teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the predefined categories further comprise one or more types of ablation catheter ([0047]).
Regarding claim 14, He teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to graphically encode by at least one of coloring and texturing ([0011], [0040], [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, He teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to graphically encode by using a graphical user interface (GUI) ([0035]).
Regarding claim 17, He teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to graphically encode by using an automated algorithm ([0044]).
Regarding claim 19, in accordance with the above provided rejection, He teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the anatomical map is an EA map ([0036] teaches the representations for the electrodes as being that of electrical signals received from one or more of the electrodes).
Regarding claim 20, He teaches the system according to claim 11, the processor is further configured to provide statistics of ablation results within at least one of the specific anatomical regions indicated by the graphical attributes of the respective ablation tags ([0040] discusses the electrode status as indicating if the electrodes have effectively or ineffectively treated the patient tissue within the region the electrode is positioned).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10, the method steps provided are the same as described as the steps the system is configured to perform and therefore taught by in the same way as seen in claims 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20170120048 A1) in view of Zeidan (US 20190099078 A1) further in view of Zoabi (US 20180161097 A1).
Regarding claim 18, He as currently modified teaches the system according to claim 11.
However, He fails to teach the system wherein the processor is configured to graphically encode by changing visibility of at least one of the encoded ablation tags between opaque, semi-transparent and fully transparent.
Zoabi teaches visualizing ablation by displaying a three-dimensional display that visually represents a region for ablation and the impact the ablation has on the region (Abstract).
Zoabi further teaches displaying an impact of an ablation based on markings, wherein the indication displayed by the markings may be transparent or not transparent sections so as to indicate the state of the tissue ([0036], [0045]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the known use of indicating a difference based on markings which are either transparent or not transparent, as is taught by Zoabi, into the system which denotes indications through the use of displayed markings as is taught by He, to produce the predictable result of indicating a difference in marking denotation, as is taught by Zoabi, as it has been held that the incorporation and/or combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Regarding claim 8, the method steps provided are the same as described as the steps the system is configured to perform and therefore taught by in the same way as seen in claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Specifically, applicant’s arguments of the limitations that art not taught by the Bar-Tal/Sanchez reference are moot in view of the new rejections under He and Zeidan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY REGAN LANCASTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-4 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached on (571) 272-1213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights