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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed July 01, 2024. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-15 have been cancelled and claims 16-35 have been added.
Claims 16-35 are presently pending and are subject to examination on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more electrodes located at a tip of an ablation catheter in claims 21 and 29, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “DV/DTMIN” should be amended to “DV/DTMIN”, to be consistent with previous recitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-18, 24-26 and 32-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,5 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,439,339 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because pending claims 16-18, 24-26 and 32-34 are of a broader scope as as the recited limitations of the pending claims are to be found in patented claims 1, 5 and 9 respectively (i.e., for pending claims 16-18, see patented claim 1, for pending claims 24-26, see patented claim 5 and for pending claims 32-34, see patented claim 9).
Claims 16-18, 24-26 and 32-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,323 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because pending claims 16, 18, 24, 26, 32 and 34 are of a broader scope as compared to corresponding patented claims 1, 3, 6, 8 11 and 13 respectively, that further recite determining extrema for the derivative signal. As such, claims pending 16, 18, 24, 26, 32 and 34 are anticipated by the said patented claims. The limitations of claims 17, 25 and 33 are to be found in patented claims 1, 6 and 11 and are therefore anticipated by the said patented claims.
Claims 19-23, 27-31 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,5 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,439,339 B1 as discussed above or claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No.11,992,323 B1 as discussed above. Although the patented claims do not specifically recite the limitations of claims 19-23, 27-31 and 35, receiving electrophysiological data using a sensory array comprising one or more electrodes and generating electrical measurement data based on the received electrophysiological data using a corresponding measurement system, receiving geometry data using a geometry sensor (claims 19-20, 22, 27-28 and 30) are well known in the art, to generate geometry information to help localize and/or navigate a device relative to anatomical structures, modifying the pending claims to arrive to the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, for added advantage of to help localize and/or navigate a device relative to anatomical structures. Catheters comprising one or more electrodes located at a tip of an ablation catheter that can be used in conjunction with measuring EGM and combining of electrical measurement data, geometry data and voltage data for display to a user are also well known, and modifying the pending claims with such a catheter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, for added advantage of evaluation lesions or tissue during ablation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heimbecher et al. US20140364848 A1, see e.g. [0015] regarding an ablation catheter with a tip ablation electrode provided with sensing electrodes to provide intracardiac electrogram , [0067] regarding electrodes providing information regarding geometry as well as EP data and projecting of voltage levels on image geometry of heart as an activation map and [0068] regarding electrode array.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached on (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797