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 (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.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In claim 8, Applicant claims "a circuitry configured to measure impedances of a body using a plurality of electrodes attached to a patient" which is a positive recitation of the body. Applicant is required to inferentially recite the body. For example, Applicant could say" a circuitry configured to measure impedances of a body using a plurality of electrodes that have been attached to a patient" (or something comparable). Appropriate correction is required.
It should be noted that all other cited claims have been rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 8-14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites non-statutory subject matter which alters the scope of the claim (see above).
It should be noted that all other cited claims have been rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bar-Tal, U.S. 10,524,692 (hereinafter Bar-Tal).
Regarding claim 1, Bar-Tal discloses (note fig. 1A) a method comprising: measuring impedances of a body using a plurality of electrodes attached to a patient, as a function of time (note abstract; fig. 6); necessarily calculating a ‘total impedance value’ from the measured impedances, as a function of time (note fig. 6); relating temporal minima of the total impedance value with timings of end-of-expirium of the patient (note col. 2, line 4; col. 2, line 28; col. 18, line 24; claim 1); and outputting the timings of end-of-expirium (note fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Bar-Tal discloses (see above) a method wherein the plurality of electrodes comprise electrodes of an electrical position-tracking system (note abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Bar-Tal discloses (see above) a method wherein calculating the total impedance value necessarily comprises calculating a reciprocal of a trace of a conductivity matrix (see impedance matrix disclosed in col. 17 of Bar-Tal; it should be noted that resistance/impedance is the inverse of conductivity).
Regarding claim 7, Bar-Tal discloses (see above) a method wherein outputting the timings comprises displaying the timings on a display device (note fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Bar-Tal discloses (note fig. 1A; col. 4, lines 3-18; col. 5, line 40) a system comprising: a circuitry configured to measure impedances of a body using a plurality of electrodes attached to a patient, as a function of time (note abstract; fig. 6); and a processor, which is necessarily configured to: calculate a ‘total impedance value’ from the measured impedances, as a function of time (note fig. 6); relate temporal minima of the total impedance value with timings of end-of-expirium of the patient (note col. 2, line 4; col. 2, line 28; col. 18, line 24; claim 1); and output the timings of end-of-expirium to a user (note fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Bar-Tal discloses (see above) a system wherein the plurality of electrodes comprise electrodes of an electrical position-tracking system (note abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Bar-Tal discloses (see above) a system wherein the processor (col. 4, lines 3-18; col. 5, line 40) is necessarily configured to calculate the total impedance value by calculating a reciprocal of a trace of a conductivity matrix (see impedance matrix disclosed in col. 17 of Bar-Tal; it should be noted that resistance/impedance is the inverse of conductivity).
Regarding claim 14, Bar-Tal discloses (see above) a system wherein the processor (col. 4, lines 3-18; col. 5, line 40) is configured to output the timings by displaying the timings on a display device (note fig. 6).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bar-Tal in view of Bar-Tal, U.S. 12,446,797 (hereinafter Bar-Tal 2).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 11-13, Bar-Tal discloses (see above) a system comprising a processor necessarily configured to perform cardiac ablation via an algorithm (note col. 5, lines 32-50; fig. 1A). However, Bar-Tal fails to explicitly disclose that said ablation is performed at time-windows around the timings of end-of-expirium. Bar-Tal 2 teaches a similar system comprising a processor (note col. 2, line 42) configured to perform ablation while tissue is stable (note claim 1), wherein tissue is considered to be stable at end-of-expirium (note col. 1, line 32; col. 4, line 22). This design is utilized in order to increase safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the apparatus of Bar-Tal to comprise a processor configured to perform ablation at time-windows around the timings of end-of-expirium in order to increase safety. It should be noted that the corresponding method (i.e., claims 4-6) would necessarily be met through the routine use of this modified system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. 2006/0074300 (Green).
U.S. 2014/0358021 (Cuba Gyllensten).
U.S. 9,445,738 (Helfenbein).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANTHONY GIULIANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
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.
/THOMAS A GIULIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights