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Claims 4-9 are withdrawn by examiner in light of the claim objections further discussed below.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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues "Pearson paragraph [0161] describes generating and displaying images or maps from one or more impedance determinations of a target tissue volume. This disclosure relates to generating an impedance map or impedance-derived image of the tissue-i.e., coloring or marking a map of the heart cavity based on impedance measurements. This is fundamentally different from what claim 1, at least as amended, requires. Claim 1 does not require displaying an impedance map of the tissue; rather, claim 1 requires dynamically adjusting a graphical feature of the virtual representation of a receiving electrode. The distinction is critical: Pearson's graphical feature is a property of the tissue map, not a graphical feature of the virtual representation of an electrode. Pearson does not disclose rendering a virtual representation of the distal end assembly that includes virtual representations of each of the plurality of receiving electrodes, nor does Pearson disclose adjusting a graphical feature of the virtual representation of a receiving electrode based on an impedance gradient over time."
Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Pearson teaches using electrodes to measure/determine tissue impedance at a plurality of locations. (claims 2 and 3) Pearson further teaches said impedance measurements are continuously taken. (Par. [0191]) The generated impedance map, and any other form of showing/representing the impedances measured by said electrodes on a display, would be considered a virtual representation of the impedances measured by said electrodes. Any changes in the impedance displayed to a user (either via an impedance map or any other displayed representation of the impedance measurements) would be considered an adjustment of the graphical feature(s) of the virtual representation.
Applicant further argues "Pearson paragraph [0170] merely describes that impedance and power values can be displayed at a user interface. Displaying a numerical impedance value is not the same as dynamically adjusting a graphical feature of the virtual representation of a receiving electrode based on a calculated impedance gradient over time, as recited in claim 1 as amended."
Examiner respectfully contends that Pearson teaches continuously measuring the impedance value(s). (Par. [0191]) Any changes in the measured impedance value(s) over time would be represented by changing the image on the display, either by altering the impedance map or altering a numerical value of the impedance.
Applicant further argues "Pearson paragraphs [0147] and [0152] relate to controlling impedance gradients as a function of distance from the electrode for purposes of optimizing power delivery and controlling infusion flow rates during ablation. These disclosures concern ablation optimization through flow-rate control-not adjusting a graphical feature of the virtual representation of a receiving electrode to indicate which electrodes are registering contact or proximity to the tissue cavity wall."
Examiner respectfully contends that Pearson, as pointed out by applicant, teaches a relationship between the impedance measured by the electrodes and the distance between the target tissue and the electrodes. Therefore, the continuous impedance measurements over time, and resulting changes in the displayed impedance information/maps would indicate the distance/proximity to the target tissue.
Applicant further argues "Similarly, Pearson paragraph [0079] describes switching between conductive pathways for impedance sensing, but does not disclose dynamically adjusting a graphical feature of the virtual representation of a receiving electrode based on a calculated impedance gradient over time."
Examiner respectfully contends that, as discussed above, Pearson teaches using electrodes to measure/determine tissue impedance at a plurality of locations. (claims 2 and 3) Pearson further teaches said impedance measurements are continuously taken. (Par. [0191]) The generated impedance map, and any other form of showing/representing the impedances measured by said electrodes on a display, would be considered a virtual representation of the impedances measured by said electrodes. Any changes in the impedance displayed to a user (either via an impedance map or any other displayed representation of the impedance measurements) would be considered an adjustment of the graphical feature(s) of the virtual representation.
Applicant further argues "Moreover, claim 1 as amended provides a significant advantage that Pearson's disclosures do not teach or suggest. Specifically, claim 1 requires that the graphical feature of each electrode's virtual representation be adjusted based on that electrode's own calculated impedance gradient over time. Thus, the touch or proximity state of each individual receiving electrode is updated in real time and dynamically as the distal end assembly moves within the tissue cavity. As the physician maneuvers the distal end assembly, some electrodes may advance toward the tissue wall while other electrodes simultaneously move away from the tissue wall. Claim 1 as amended provides for dynamically adjusting the graphical feature of each electrode's virtual representation to reflect these individual, real-time changes-allowing the physician to see at a glance which specific electrodes are approaching the tissue wall and which are moving away. Pearson's tissue impedance maps and ablation-control disclosures do not teach or suggest this per-electrode, real- time dynamic updating of graphical features based on each electrode's own impedance gradient over time."
Examiner respectfully contends that the current claim language of claim 1 does not require each electrode to have a separate/individual virtual representation. The claim language requires "the virtual representation includes virtual representations of each of the plurality of receiving electrodes on the distal end assembly." Therefore, multiple virtual representations for all of the electrodes grouped together would read on the claim limitation. Pearson teaches displaying a determined impedance and displaying a determined power. (par. [0170]) Furthermore, Pearson teaches determining impedance profiles for separate electrodes (fig. 5 and Par. [0091]) As the impedance in any of the separate impedance profiles changes, said change would be reflected in the representation displayed to the user.
Applicant further argues "Bar-Tal is cited only for teaching the use of alternating current (AC) signals and does not cure the deficiencies of Pearson. Bar-Tal does not teach or suggest rendering a virtual representation of the distal end assembly that includes virtual representations of each of the plurality of receiving electrodes, nor does Bar-Tal teach dynamically adjusting a graphical feature of the virtual representation of a receiving electrode based on a calculated impedance gradient over time. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, at least as amended, is patentable over Pearson in view of Bar-Tal, and that each of dependent claims 2-3 and 10 is also patentable at least by virtue of its dependency on claim 1."
Examiner respectfully contends that, as further discussed above, Pearson teaches all of the deficiencies of Bar-Tal cited by Applicant.
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 1-3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because adjusting a graphical feature of a display is an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the dynamic adjustment of the graphical feature into a practical application. As best understood by examiner, there are no further steps recited in claim 1 than displaying the virtual representation in real time. (e.g. dynamically adjusting the virtual representation)
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of adjusting a graphical feature of a display. The electrodes recited in claim 1 amount to a generic recitation of a sensor component. The method steps in claim 1 amount to calculating a value and displaying said value in real time.
Claims 2, 3, and 10 are rejected due not adding significantly more than the abstract idea.
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
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