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 .
Claims 4-9 are withdrawn by examiner in light of the claim objections further discussed below. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-3 and 10 appears herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Neither Pearson nor Bar-Tal teaches or suggests (i) dynamically rendering a virtual representation of the distal end assembly that includes respective representations of the plurality of receiving electrodes, and (ii) dynamically adjusting a graphical feature of at least one displayed receiving electrode based on a calculated impedance gradient over time so as to indicate that electrode's proximity to the tissue cavity wall. Applicant has not identified any disclosure in Pearson and/or Bar-Tal that links an impedance-gradient-over-time calculation to real-time changes of an electrode's displayed graphical feature on a GUI.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Pearson teaches, as further discussed in the rejection to claim 1 below, calculating an impedance gradient over time of a distal end assembly comprising a plurality of electrodes; (Par. [0152] and Fig. 23) determining impedance gradients as a function of distance from the electrode; (Par. [0147]) and displaying images or maps of one or more impedance determinations. (Par. [0161]) The displayed images/maps of the one or more impedance determinations would be considered a graphical feature of a receiving electrode used in said impedance determinations and would indicate the electrode’s proximity to the surrounding tissue due to the impedance gradient being a function of distance from said electrode. Any changes to impedance would be displayed to the user, requiring said images/maps to be dynamically adjusted.
Applicant further argues “The Examiner relies on Pearson paragraph [0152] for an "impedance gradient." However, Pearson uses the impedance gradient in the context of controlling an infusion flow rate (i.e., a control loop) to maintain a desired gradient. Pearson paragraph [0152] does not disclose or suggest using an impedance gradient over time to drive dynamic changes to an electrode's displayed graphical feature on a GUI.”
Examiner respectfully contends that, as further discussed in the rejection to claim 1 below, Pearson teaches displaying images/maps from one or more impedance determinations. (Par. [0161]) The determined impedance gradient in Par. [0152]) of Pearson would be displayed, including any changes to said impedance gradient.
Applicant further argues “Pearson paragraph [0170], cited by the Examiner, indicates that impedance may be calculated and that a value may be displayed on a user interface. Displaying an impedance value, however, is not the claimed subject matter. Claim 1 requires dynamically adjusting a graphical feature of at least one displayed receiving electrode based on a calculated impedance gradient over time. Neither Pearson nor Bar-Tal discloses computing an impedance gradient over time for indicating movement of an electrode with respect to a tissue cavity wall, nor discloses modifying an electrode's displayed graphical feature in response to such a gradient. Accordingly, Pearson in view of Bar-Tal does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation, and the rejection should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully contends that Pearson teaches, as further discussed in the rejection to claim 1 below, calculating an impedance gradient over time of a distal end assembly comprising a plurality of electrodes; (Par. [0152] and Fig. 23) determining impedance gradients as a function of distance from the electrode; (Par. [0147]) and displaying images or maps of one or more impedance determinations. (Par. [0161]) The displayed images/maps of the one or more impedance determinations would be considered a graphical feature of a receiving electrode used in said impedance determinations and would indicate the electrode’s proximity to the surrounding tissue due to the impedance gradient being a function of distance from said electrode. Any changes to impedance would be displayed to the user, requiring said images/maps to be dynamically adjusted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US 2003/0130711 A1) in view of Bar-Tal (US 8,456,182 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Pearson teaches: A method of indicating movement of a receiving electrode of a distal end assembly with respect to a tissue cavity wall (Fig. 23), the method comprising:
using a distal end assembly comprising a plurality of electrodes (Fig. 23, Char. 18: electrodes) arranged on the distal end assembly in a three-dimensional (3D) configuration; (Fig. 23)
transmitting a current signal between one or more reference electrode(s) and a plurality of receiving electrodes attached to a plurality of splines; (Claim 12)
calculating a plurality of impedance values over time based on a received signal at each one of the receiving electrodes; (Par. [0148] and Par. [0170])
calculating a gradient over time of the impedance values at each one of the receiving electrodes; (Par. [0152])
dynamically rendering a virtual representation of the distal end assembly within a three-dimensional working volume on a display, wherein the virtual representation includes virtual representations of each of the plurality of receiving electrodes on the distal end assembly; (Par. [0161] and [0170]) and
dynamically adjusting a graphical feature of at least one of the plurality of receiving electrodes displayed based on the calculated gradient over time of the impedance. (Par. [0079] and [0170])
Pearson, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the transmitted current signal being an alternating current signal.
Bar-Tal, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical device comprising a control unit configured to deliver a plurality of alternating current signals to a respective plurality of mapping electrodes. (Col. 7, Lines 20-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Pearson, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Bar-Tal, and configure the control unit (55) and RF energy source (554) of Pearson to deliver respective alternating current signals to each of the electrodes (18) of Pearson as taught by Bar-Tal. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one mapping signal for another for the predictable result of measuring impedance and mapping the surrounding treatment area.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pearson/Bar-Tal, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches a first graphical feature (Attached “Annotated Pearson Fig. 23d” below: The second pixel of the curve (530) defining the increasing portion of curve (530) labelled “Portion A” of the impedance plot) is defined for a computed positive gradient (Attached “Annotated Pearson Fig. 23d” below: the portion of curve (530) labelled “Portion A”) above a defined positive threshold (Attached “Annotated Pearson Fig. 23d” below: The first pixel of the curve (530) defining the increasing portion of curve (530) labelled “Portion A” of the impedance plot) and a second graphical feature (Attached “Annotated Pearson Fig. 23d” below: The second pixel of the curve (530) defining the decreasing portion of curve (530) labelled “Portion C” of the impedance plot) is defined for a computed negative gradient (Attached “Annotated Pearson Fig. 23d” below: the portion of curve (530) labelled “Portion C”) below a defined negative threshold. (Attached “Annotated Pearson Fig. 23d” below: The second pixel of the curve (530) defining the decreasing portion of curve (530) labelled “Portion C” of the impedance plot)
Annotated Pearson Fig. 23d
PNG
media_image1.png
558
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pearson/Bar-Tal, as applied to claim 2 above, teaches a third graphical feature is defined for a computed gradient between the negative threshold and the positive threshold. (Attached “Annotated Pearson Fig 23d” above: The portion of curve (530) in the optimal impedance zone (532))
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Pearson/Bar-Tal, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the graphical feature is configured to provide indication related to a proximity of the at least one of the plurality of receiving electrodes to the tissue cavity wall. (Pearson: Par. [0147]: Impedance gradients as a function of distance)
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 NICHOLAS SHEA BORSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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 3032974276. 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.
/N.S.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights