DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/14/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Applicant has amended their claims, filed 04/14/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending and hereby under examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests claim 9 to be written as “wherein the notification is displayed on a monitor, and wherein the notification comprises visual indicators that indicate periods when the probe is stable relative to the boundary”. This suggestion clarifies that the “notifying” refers to the notification of claim 8, and that the notification includes visual indicators that are displayed on a monitor.
Examiner suggests claim 18 to be written as “wherein the processor is further configured to notify the surgeon via a display on a monitor when the probe is stable relative to a boundary of the cavity”. This suggestion clarifies who/what is being notified, consistent with language used in the specification (see, for example, paragraph 0026).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, it is unclear how the probe location data is obtained using a predetermined time period to account for a duration of a heartbeat. Is the data only obtained over that predetermined time period? Is it repeatedly taken over a predetermined time period (i.e., is it successive time periods or only one period)? For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted such that probe location data is obtained over one or multiple time periods to account for the heartbeat. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, it is unclear what is being adjusted to an end of the respiration cycle. Is generating compensated location data done adjusting the obtained probe location to an end of the respiration cycle obtained by the respiration data? Is the probe location data only obtained at an end of the respiration cycle or obtained starting at the end of the respiration cycle? For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted such that probe location data accounts for the end of the respiration cycle when generating the compensated location data.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis of independent claims 1 and 11:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 11 is directed to a system, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a method. Therefore, further consideration is necessary regarding claims.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea. In particular, the claims generally recite
the following:
generating compensated location data by compensating the obtained probe location data with the obtained respiration data by at least adjusting to an end of the respiration cycle (claims 1 and 11); and
producing a mapping based on the generated compensated location data (claims 1 and 11).
These elements recited in claims 1 and 11 are drawn to an abstract idea since they are directed towards mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
“generating compensated location data by compensating the obtained probe location data with the obtained respiration data by at least adjusting to an end of the respiration cycle” is drawn to an abstract idea since it is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper or a generic computer. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably adjust obtained location data to an obtained respiration cycle and obtain compensated location data. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in “generating compensated location data by compensating the obtained probe location data with the obtained respiration data by at least adjusting to an end of the respiration cycle”.
“producing a mapping based on the generated compensated location data” is drawn to an abstract idea since it is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper or a generic computer. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably map the coordinates of the compensated location data. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in “producing a mapping based on the generated compensated location data”.
Prong Two: Claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are "directed to" the abstract idea. The additional elements merely:
Recite the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g., “a plurality of probes configured to be inserted into an intra-body cavity of a patient” (claim 11)), and
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data gathering components (e.g., "obtaining respiration data of a patient via at least one sensor, the obtained respiration data providing a respiration cycle” (claim 1), "obtaining probe location data for a plurality of probes positioned within a cavity using a predetermined time period to account for a duration of a heartbeat" (claim 1), “at least one sensor configured to obtain respiration data, the obtained respiration data providing a respiration cycle” (claim 11), and “the plurality of probes and the at least one sensor being configured to obtain probe location data using a predetermined time period to account for a duration of a heartbeat” (claim 11)).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather information to be used by the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e., the result is not used for a treatment. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. E.g., all elements are directed to implementing the abstract ideas on generic processing components, the pre-solution activity of using generic data-gathering components, and generic post-solution activities, which merely facilitate the abstract idea.
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, “probe” as disclosed in the Applicant’s specification in paragraph 0024, “The term probe is used interchangeably with the term catheter herein, and one skilled in the art would understand that any type of location sensing device could be implemented with the configurations disclosed herein” and in paragraph 0043, “This data can be generated using any known tracking or sensing configuration for a catheter, probe, sensor, etc.”.
Additionally, the method of compensating probe location data with a respiration data and mapping the data is known within the art.
Hauck (US 20040254437) teaches a method of displaying the location of electrodes in the body and compensating the location based on the respiration (see paragraphs 0039, 0047, and 0048).
Koyrakh (US 20180055576) teaches a system for stabilization based on respiratory movement, wherein the location of a medical device is tracked and refined based on the respiration model generated from the respiratory movement (Paragraphs 0026-0028).
Craven (US 20080221459) teaches a medical system that collects location data points of electrodes within the heart of a patient and corrects the data for respiration and other artifacts (Paragraph 0049).
Thus, these elements do not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'/, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric PowerGroup, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'/, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. lnvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements include a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Analysis of dependent claims 2-9 and 12-20:
Claims 2, 4-6, and 12-16 recite steps that are mathematical concepts, which add to the abstract idea. The mathematical concepts are identified as:
“applying a filter to the respiration data” (claim 2);
“converting the respiration indicators by using singular value decomposition (SVD) to obtain a first Eigenvector and a first Eigenvector derivative, the first Eigenvector corresponding to a primary respiration signal and the first Eigenvector derivative corresponding to a phase shifted respiration signal” (claim 4);
“wherein the primary respiration signal and the phase shifted respiration signal are transferred from two dimensions into a three-dimensional ellipsoid based on a correlation matrix” (claim 5);
“wherein the correlation matrix is determined based on weighted factors including at least one of: age of the respiration data; speed of the probe; and depth of respiration” (claim 6);
“apply a filter to the respiration data and the probe location data” (claim 12);
“generate respiration indicators based on the respiration data from the at least one sensor” (claim 13);
“convert the respiration indicators by using singular value decomposition (SVD) to obtain a first Eigenvector and a first Eigenvector derivative, the first Eigenvector corresponding to a primary respiration signal and the first Eigenvector derivative corresponding to a phase shifted respiration signal” (claim 14);
“wherein the primary respiration signal and the phase shifted respiration signal are transferred from two dimensions into a three-dimensional ellipsoid based on a correlation matrix” (claim 15); and
“wherein the correlation matrix is determined based on weighted factors including at least one of: age of the respiration data; speed of the probe; and depth of respiration” (claim 16).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 recite mental steps that may be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper or a generic computer, which add to the abstract idea. The mental steps are identified as:
“wherein notifying periods when the probe is stable relative to the boundary via visual indicators displayed on a monitor” (claim 9);
“identifying site stability sites based on periods when probe speed is less than a predetermined velocity for at least a predetermined period of time” (claim 10);
“wherein notifying of the periods when the probe is stable relative to the boundary includes displaying visual indicators on a monitor” (claim 19); and
“identify site stability sites based on the periods when probe speed is less than 2 mm/second for at least three seconds” (claim 20)).
Claims 3, 7-9, and 17-19 recite limitations in addition to the abstract idea: they merely
Further describe the pre-solution activity (“wherein the obtaining respiration data further includes: obtaining respiration indicators via the at least one sensor” (claim 3)), and
Further describe the post-solution activity (“generating an image including: estimated respiratory motion based on the respiration data, probe motion based on the probe location data, and probe-cavity motion based on the generated compensated location data” (claim 7, Examiner interprets the “image” to be a set of data values rather than a video depicting motion. This is consistent with what is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 2, which shows an image of a plot depicting probe location data over a certain time period), “generating a notification when the probe is stable relative to a boundary of the cavity” (claim 8), “generate an image including estimated respiratory motion based on the respiration data, probe motion based on the probe location data, and probe-cavity motion based on the generated compensated location data” (claim 17, Examiner interprets the “image” to be a set of data values rather than a video depicting motion. This is consistent with what is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 2, which shows an image of a plot depicting probe location data over a certain time period), and “notify of the periods when the probe is stable relative to a boundary of the cavity” (claim 18)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. The result of the abstract idea does not cause the computing device and/or application to perform different.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bar-Tal (US 20220183669), Fuimaono (US 6961602), and Ben-Haim (US 6892091).
Regarding claim 1, Bar-Tal discloses a method comprising:
obtaining respiration data of a patient via at least one sensor, the obtained respiration data providing a respiration cycle (Paragraph 0030, “The respiration motion gathered from the sensors can be used to generate an ellipsoid (i.e. element 20 in FIG. 2) that provides a model of the respiration cycle”; Paragraph 0032, “The term respiratory motion 20 refers to motion that is based on respiration data, which can be gathered or collected in various ways. For example, in one embodiment, probes, sensors, or patches (such as sensors 5 in FIG. 1) are attached to a patient's body or sensors are integrated with the catheter 1 that may be used in conjunction with external sensors 5”);
obtaining probe location data for a probe positioned within a cavity (Paragraph 0035, “The in-heart motion 50 is also referred to as the catheter-heart motion or probe-cavity motion. In one aspect, the in-heart motion 50 is measured in millimeters, but can be measured used any metrics. This motion data can generically refer to any type of motion data for a probe, catheter, or sensor relative to any wall or chamber of a chamber. This data can ultimately be used to determine site stability, specifically relating to ablation in a patient's heart. The in-heart motion 50 is typically important for a surgeon due to this information indicating when the catheter is stable relative to the heart chamber wall. With the in-heart motion 50, it is possible to find a stability point, also known as a stability location or site. This information is important for determining various parameters regarding an ablation lesion, such as location, size, etc.”);
generating compensated location data by compensating the obtained probe location data with the obtained respiration data (Paragraph 0135, “Step 1330 includes generating probe-cavity location data by compensating (e.g., subtracting or adding) the respiration data from the probe location data”) by at least adjusting to an end of the respiration cycle (Paragraph 0081, wherein a test is performed to determine if there are respiration gaps, wherein a y-value of the respiration minima is checked to be larger than the y values in the respiration maxima to represent end-emporium; Paragraph 0005, which is important to use for probe stability); and
producing a mapping based on the generated compensated location data (Paragraph 0136, “In one aspect, markers, tags, or visual indicators are overlaid or inserted onto a three-dimensional mapping or image of the location data and are displayed on a monitor (e.g., monitor 3 in FIG. 1)”).
Bar-Tal fails to disclose a plurality of probes and using a predetermined time period for obtaining probe data to account for the heartbeat.
Bar-Tal and Fuimaono are in the same field of mapping catheters. Fuimaono teaches a catheter for mapping the electrical activity in a heart (Abstract), wherein the catheter 10 has a mapping assembly 18 comprising a plurality of spines 14 (Fig. 1; Col 3, lines 57-61). As Bar-Tal is concerned with determining location data of one probe and compensating for respiration, Fuimaono teaches a mapping catheter with a plurality of spines. A plurality of spines allows for mapping more areas of the heart, obtaining more positional data, and having various configurations and shapes for measurement (Col 8, lines 34-44). Therefore, 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 the respiration compensation method of Bar-Tal to incorporate the catheter with a plurality of spines as taught by Fuimaono, the benefit being able to collect more positional/location data from the heart.
Bar-Tal, Fuimaono, and Ben-Haim are in the same field of mapping catheters. Ben-Haim teaches a catheter for mapping of a chamber of the heart (Abstract). The measurements taken by location sensor 28 are synchronized with the heart cycle to eliminate error due to movement of the heart (Col 9, lines 10-19; Examiner interprets taking measurements to synchronize with the heart cycle as obtaining location data over a predetermined time period, as the measurement time is synced to the same point of a cardiac cycle). As Bar-Tal is concerned with determining location data of one probe and compensating for respiration, Ben-Haim teaches a method of synchronizing data collection with the cardiac cycle. This would help reduce errors related to cardiac movement from heart beats. Therefore, 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 the method of Bar-Tal and Fuimaono to incorporate the synchronization technique as taught by Ben-Haim in order to reduce mapping errors due to heart beats.
Regarding claim 2, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses applying a filter to the respiration data (Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 3, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the obtaining respiration data further includes:
obtaining respiration indicators via the at least one sensor (Paragraph 0037, respiration indicators (RI); Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 4, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the obtaining respiration data further includes:
converting the respiration indicators by using singular value decomposition (SVD) to obtain a first Eigenvector (Paragraph 0045) and a first Eigenvector derivative, the first Eigenvector corresponding to a primary respiration signal and the first Eigenvector derivative corresponding to a phase shifted respiration signal (Paragraph 0137).
Regarding claim 5, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the primary respiration signal and the phase shifted respiration signal are transferred from two dimensions into a three-dimensional ellipsoid based on a correlation matrix (Paragraph 0137, “The method 1300 can include transferring the primary respiration signal and the phase shifted respiration signal from two dimensions into a three-dimensional ellipsoid based on a correlation matrix”).
Regarding claim 6, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the correlation matrix is determined based on weighted factors including at least one of: age of the respiration data; speed of the probe; and depth of respiration (Paragraph 0137, “the method 1300 can include determining the correlation matrix based on weighted factors including at least one of: (i) age of the respiration data; (ii) speed of the probe; (iii) depth of respiration; or (iv) data obtained during ablation”).
Regarding claim 7, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses generating an image including:
estimated respiratory motion based on the respiration data, probe motion based on the probe location data, and probe-cavity motion based on the generated compensated location data (Paragraph 0137, “the method 1300 includes generating an image including estimated respiratory motion based on the respiration data, probe motion based on the probe location data, and probe-cavity motion based on the probe-cavity location data”).
Regarding claim 8, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses generating a notification when the probe is stable relative to a boundary of the cavity (Paragraph 0136).
Regarding claim 9, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein notifying periods when the probe is stable relative to the boundary via visual indicators displayed on a monitor (Paragraph 0136).
Regarding claim 10, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses identifying site stability sites based on periods when probe speed is less than a predetermined velocity for at least a predetermined period of time (Paragraph 0135, “Step 1350 includes identifying site stability sites based on the periods when probe speed is less than a predetermined speed for a predetermined period”).
Regarding claim 11, Bar-Tal discloses a system comprising:
a probe configured to be inserted into an intra-body cavity of a patient (Fig. 1, probe or catheter 1 in patient’s heart 2);
at least one sensor (Fig. 1, sensors 5) configured to obtain respiration data, the probe and the at least one sensor being configured to obtain probe location data, the obtained respiration data providing a respiration cycle (Paragraph 0030, “The respiration motion gathered from the sensors can be used to generate an ellipsoid (i.e. element 20 in FIG. 2) that provides a model of the respiration cycle”; Paragraph 0032, “The term respiratory motion 20 refers to motion that is based on respiration data, which can be gathered or collected in various ways. For example, in one embodiment, probes, sensors, or patches (such as sensors 5 in FIG. 1) are attached to a patient's body or sensors are integrated with the catheter 1 that may be used in conjunction with external sensors 5”); and
a processor (Fig. 1, processor 4b) configured to:
generate compensated location data by compensating the obtained probe location data with the obtained respiration data (Paragraph 0135, “Step 1330 includes generating probe-cavity location data by compensating (e.g., subtracting or adding) the respiration data from the probe location data”) by at least adjusting to an end of the respiration cycle (Paragraph 0081, wherein a test is performed to determine if there are respiration gaps, wherein a y-value of the respiration minima is checked to be larger than the y values in the respiration maxima to represent end-expirium; Paragraph 0005, which is important to use for probe stability), and
produce a mapping based on the generated compensated location data (Paragraph 0136, “In one aspect, markers, tags, or visual indicators are overlaid or inserted onto a three-dimensional mapping or image of the location data and are displayed on a monitor (e.g., monitor 3 in FIG. 1)”).
Bar-Tal fails to disclose a plurality of probes and using a predetermined time period for obtaining probe data to account for the heartbeat.
Bar-Tal and Fuimaono are in the same field of mapping catheters. Fuimaono teaches a catheter for mapping the electrical activity in a heart (Abstract), wherein the catheter 10 has a mapping assembly 18 comprising a plurality of spines 14 (Fig. 1; Col 3, lines 57-61). As Bar-Tal is concerned with determining location data of one probe and compensating for respiration, Fuimaono teaches a mapping catheter with a plurality of spines. A plurality of spines allows for mapping more areas of the heart/obtaining more positional data and having various configurations and shapes for measurement (Col 8, lines 34-44). Therefore, 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 the respiration compensation method of Bar-Tal to incorporate the catheter with a plurality of spines as taught by Fuimaono, the benefit being able to collect more positional/location data from the heart.
Bar-Tal, Fuimaono, and Ben-Haim are in the same field of mapping catheters. Ben-Haim teaches a catheter for mapping of a chamber of the heart (Abstract). The measurements taken by location sensor 28 are synchronized with the heart cycle to eliminate error due to movement of the heart (Col 9, lines 10-19; Examiner interprets taking measurements to synchronize with the heart cycle as obtaining location data over a predetermined time period, as the measurement time is synced to the same point of a cardiac cycle). As Bar-Tal is concerned with determining location data of one probe and compensating for respiration, Ben-Haim teaches a method of synchronizing data collection with the cardiac cycle. This would help reduce errors related to cardiac movement from heart beats. Therefore, 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 the method of Bar-Tal and Fuimaono to incorporate the synchronization technique as taught by Ben-Haim in order to reduce mapping errors due to heart beats.
Regarding claim 12, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to apply a filter to the respiration data and the probe location data (Paragraphs 0043 and 0051).
Regarding claim 13, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate respiration indicators based on the respiration data from the at least one sensor (Paragraph 0037, respiration indicators (RI); Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 14, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to convert the respiration indicators by using singular value decomposition (SVD) to obtain a first Eigenvector (Paragraph 0045) and a first Eigenvector derivative, the first Eigenvector corresponding to a primary respiration signal and the first Eigenvector derivative corresponding to a phase shifted respiration signal (Paragraph 0137).
Regarding claim 15, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the primary respiration signal and the phase shifted respiration signal are transferred from two dimensions into a three-dimensional ellipsoid based on a correlation matrix (Paragraph 0137, “The method 1300 can include transferring the primary respiration signal and the phase shifted respiration signal from two dimensions into a three-dimensional ellipsoid based on a correlation matrix”).
Regarding claim 16, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the correlation matrix is determined based on weighted factors including at least one of: age of the respiration data; speed of the probe; and depth of respiration (Paragraph 0137, “the method 1300 can include determining the correlation matrix based on weighted factors including at least one of: (i) age of the respiration data; (ii) speed of the probe; (iii) depth of respiration; or (iv) data obtained during ablation”).
Regarding claim 17, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate an image including estimated respiratory motion based on the respiration data, probe motion based on the probe location data, and probe-cavity motion based on the generated compensated location data (Paragraph 0137, “the method 1300 includes generating an image including estimated respiratory motion based on the respiration data, probe motion based on the probe location data, and probe-cavity motion based on the probe-cavity location data”).
Regarding claim 18, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to notify of the periods when the probe is stable relative to a boundary of the cavity (Paragraph 0136).
Regarding claim 19, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein notifying of the periods when the probe is stable relative to the boundary includes displaying visual indicators on a monitor (Paragraph 0136).
Regarding claim 20, Bar-Tal as modified further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to identify site stability sites based on the periods when probe speed is less than 2 mm/second for at least three seconds (Paragraph 0135).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the drawings objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the specification to correct the reference characters. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has corrected the lack of antecedent basis. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to recite that a plurality of probes collect location data, and location data is collected using a predetermined time period to account for a duration of a heartbeat. Examiner agrees that Bar-Tal fails to explicitly disclose these limitations. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bar-Tal, Fuimaono, and Ben-Haim, as described above. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the amendments to the claims.
Examiner notes that, upon further consideration of the claims, a 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection applies to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights