DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 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) 1-3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guttman et al U.S 2010/0312096.
Claim 1: Guttman et al disclose a method for improving regional resolution in fast anatomical mapping as best seen in figures 10,12-13, comprising: receiving, on a surface of an anatomical map 32 of a patient organ having a first presentation, a selection of a first selected region, which is intended to have a second presentation different from the first presentation (see paragraphs 105, 140); identifying (i) a perimeter of the first selected region, and (ii) at least an unselected area positioned within the first selected region (see fig. 15, paragraph 139); Note that other embodiments are directed to MRI guided cardiac interventional systems. The systems include: a display; a processor in communication with the display and adapted to communicate with a MRI scanner; electronic memory coupled to the processor; and computer program code residing in the memory that is executable by the processor for: [0011] (a) generating at least one near real time (RT) MRI image of at least a portion of a heart of a patient using relevant anatomical scan planes associated with a 3-D MRI image space having a coordinate system; [0012] (b) identifying coordinates associated with a location of at least a distal portion of at least one flexible intrabody catheter in the 3-D MRI image space to track a location of a distal end portion of the catheter; [0013] (c) rendering dynamic near RT visualizations of the at least one flexible catheter in the 3-D image space, wherein the at least one flexible catheter is not required to be in any of the relevant anatomical scan planes used to obtain MR data for the at least one near RT MRI image, and wherein the distal end portion of the flexible catheter can take on a non-linear shape; [0014] (d) displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) containing at least one of the visualizations within the display; and [0015] (e) allowing a user to alter the visualizations using the GUI to selectively show different tissue characteristic maps or data from the selected tissue characteristic map (see paragraph 10, claim 65). Alternatively, it would have been obvious that the above description of Guttman et al steps would produce a second selected region, comprising (i) the first selected region, and (il) the unselected area; and displaying the anatomical map having the second presentation applied to the second selected region. Thus, claim 1 is unpatentable over Guttman et al.
Claims 2-3, 7: Guttman et al disclose wherein the first presentation comprises a first mapping resolution of the anatomical map and the second presentation comprises a second mapping resolution of the second selected region of the anatomical map (see paragraph 134)., wherein the first selected region comprises one or more selected areas and at least the unselected area, wherein identifying the unselected area comprises identifying, within the first selected region, at least an isolated unselected area surrounded by the one or more selected areas (see paragraph 139); wherein the first selected region comprises first and second selected areas at least partially disjoint from one another by the unselected area, wherein identifying the unselected area comprises identifying, within the first selected region, the unselected area that is partially enclosed by the first and second selected areas (see paragraphs 134,139).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6,8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (6:30-4:30).
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/VI X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights