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 .
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.
In re claim 1, the limitation “the heart” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the limitation, “the heart” is a new limitation that lacks antecedent basis, or if it’s directed to the earlier recited “human heart”. For examination purposes, the limitation, “the heart” is interpreted as being directed to the earlier recited “human heart”.
In re claim 1, the limitation “the map” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the limitation, “the map” is a new limitation that lacks antecedent basis, or if it’s directed to the earlier recited “an electro-anatomical map of the heart”. For examination purposes, the limitation, “the map” is interpreted as being directed to the earlier recited “an electro-anatomical map of the heart”.
In re claim 5, the limitation “the first map” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the limitation, “the first map” is a new limitation that lacks antecedent basis, or if it’s directed to the earlier recited “first electro-anatomical map of the heart”. For examination purposes, the limitation, “the first map” is interpreted as being directed to the earlier recited “first electro-anatomical map of the heart”.
In re claim 5, the limitation “the second map” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the limitation, “the second map” is a new limitation that lacks antecedent basis, or if it’s directed to the earlier recited “second electro-anatomical map of the heart”. For examination purposes, the limitation, “the second map” is interpreted as being directed to the earlier recited “second electro-anatomical map of the heart”.
In re claim 11, the limitation “the electrodes” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the limitation, “the electrodes” is a new limitation that lacks antecedent basis, or if it’s directed to the earlier recited “plurality of electrodes”. For examination purposes, the limitation, “the electrodes” is interpreted as being directed to the earlier recited “plurality of electrodes”.
In re claim 11, regarding the limitations, “the heart” and “the map”, see in re claim 1 above.
In re claim 11, the limitation, “the selected spatial location” lacks antecedent basis.
In re claim 15, regarding the limitations, “the first map” and “the second map”, see in re claim 5 above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent claims 1 and 11 are directed toward a method and system for identifying one or more spatial locations that correspond to suspected triggers of atrial fibrillation in a human heart, respectively. Thus, they are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the following claim limitations which are directed to abstract ideas, specifically mental processes and mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)):
In re claim 1:
identifying one or more spatial locations that correspond to suspected triggers of atrial fibrillation in a human heart (mental process – person can identify spatial locations);
determining at least one composite correlation score associated with a selected spatial location in the heart (mathematical concept – mathematical equations and relationships, see Applicant’s specification [0085]: In a specific example, the composite correlation score for A1 (Score (A1)) is the average of individual correlation values (Corr(A1, A2) and Corr(A1, A3))…),
determining at least one composite correlation score associated with each of a plurality of other selected spatial locations in the heart by repeating said determining for each of the other selected spatial locations (mathematical concept mathematical equations and relationships, see Applicant’s specification [0085]: A similar process is then repeated to determine composite correlation scores for signals A2 and A3. For example, the composite correlation score for signal A2 (Score (A2)) is determined from the correlation between A1 and A2 (Corr(A1, A2) and the correlation between A2 and A3 Corr(A2, A3))…).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or are mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships and equations).
Therefore, the claim limitations fall within the 'mental processes' and ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
In re claim 1, “wherein the method is performed using a catheter having a plurality of electrodes positioned in the heart, and the electrodes collect electrical signals from spatial locations within the heart as the catheter moves within the heart during a medical procedure, the method comprising:
wherein the at least one composite correlation score is based on a plurality of individual correlation values,
wherein each individual correlation value is based on a correlation between at least one signal associated with a selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and at least one signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location;
displaying an electro-anatomical map of the heart, wherein the map spatially depicts information representative of the composite correlation score determined for each of the selected spatial locations; and
wherein the information representative of the composite correlation score displayed on the electro-anatomical map for at least one of the selected spatial locations indicates that the at least one selected spatial location corresponds to a suspected trigger of atrial fibrillation.
Claim 11 additionally recites the following additional elements:
a processor communicatively coupled to memory and the electrodes,
a display communicatively coupled to the processor.
The following limitations: “wherein the method is performed using a catheter having a plurality of electrodes positioned in the heart, and the electrodes collect electrical signals from spatial locations within the heart as the catheter moves within the heart during a medical procedure, the method comprising:
wherein the at least one composite correlation score is based on a plurality of individual correlation values,
wherein each individual correlation value is based on a correlation between at least one signal associated with a selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and at least one signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location”,
are pre-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), because they’re used to obtain information representative of the composite correlation score.
Additionally, the limitations,
“displaying an electro-anatomical map of the heart, wherein the map spatially depicts information representative of the composite correlation score determined for each of the selected spatial locations; and
wherein the information representative of the composite correlation score displayed on the electro-anatomical map for at least one of the selected spatial locations indicates that the at least one selected spatial location corresponds to a suspected trigger of atrial fibrillation”,
are directed to additional elements, specifically insignificant post solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The above recited limitations merely process information and then display the results of the above identified abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited “displaying” is neither particular enough to meaningfully limit the recited exception nor does it have more than a nominal relationship to the exception. In other words, the breadth of the recited “displaying” is such that it substantially encompasses all applications of the recited exception (such as moving information).
There is nothing in the claims which show how displaying an electro-anatomical map of the heart integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or a technological solution to a technological problem.
Regarding the limitations, “the processor operating to…”, Examiner asserts that the recited limitation amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983).
Additionally, the above recited claims’ recitation of
“a processor communicatively coupled to memory and the electrodes,
a display communicatively coupled to the processor”,
are merely reciting the computer components at a high-level of generality. In other words, the computer components are being used as a tool to carry out the system’s functions (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity, and generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, regarding the limitations directed to “wherein the method is performed using a catheter having a plurality of electrodes positioned in the heart, and the electrodes collect electrical signals from spatial locations within the heart during a medical procedure, the method comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to memory and the electrodes,
a display communicatively coupled to the processor”,
see Saksena (US 2007/0232949), which discloses a method for the detection and diagnosis of atrial fibrillation [0002],
wherein the method is performed using a catheter (fig. 1: 12; [0025]) having a plurality of electrodes (20a-20j) positioned in a heart (fig. 1), and
the electrodes collect electrical signals [0030] from spatial locations within the heart ([0028]: electrodes positioned within left pulmonary artery 26 to detect electrical activity) during a medical procedure [0036, 0055],
the method further comprising:
a processor [0030] communicatively coupled to a memory [0030] and the electrodes [0030],
a display (fig. 3: 55) communicatively coupled to the processor [0030].
Thus, the limitations directed to a catheter having a plurality of electrodes positioned in the heart, the electrodes collect electrical signals from spatial locations within the heart during a medical procedure, a processor communicatively coupled to memory and the electrodes, and a display communicatively coupled to the processor are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the reference above.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and generic computer components.
The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, none of the claims 1-20 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 11, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghosh (US 2014/0235988).
In re claim 1, Ghosh discloses a method [0029] for identifying one or more spatial locations [0029] that correspond to suspected triggers of atrial fibrillation [0029] in a human heart ([0029-0030]: cardiac tissue), wherein
the method is performed using a catheter ([0031]: 12 may include a catheter; fig. 1) having a plurality of electrodes (fig. 1: 34) positioned in the heart [0030], and
the electrodes collect electrical signals [0027] from spatial locations within the heart as the catheter moves within the heart during a medical procedure [0027],
the method comprising:
determining at least one composite correlation score ([0027]: correlation coefficient) associated with a selected spatial location in the heart ([0027]: correlation coefficient is based off a correlation map of spatial correlation maps),
wherein the at least one composite correlation score is based on a plurality of individual correlation values ([0027]: correlation coefficient calculated by averaging simple Pearson correlation coefficients),
wherein each individual correlation value is based on a correlation between at least one signal associated with a selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location ([0027]: unipolar electrogram signal recorded at an electrode positioned at a given point) and at least one signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes ([0027]: simultaneously recorded unipolar electrogram signals at spatially adjacent electrodes) when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location [0027];
determining at least one composite correlation score associated with each of a plurality of other selected spatial locations in the heart by repeating said determining for each of the other selected spatial locations ([0067]: average correlation coefficient can be computed for each electrode 34; [0046]: correlation map created over multiple cycles; [0027]);
displaying an electro-anatomical map of the heart [0046],
wherein the map spatially depicts information representative of the composite correlation score determined for each of the selected spatial locations [0046, 0067]; and
wherein the information representative of the composite correlation score displayed on the electro-anatomical map for at least one of the selected spatial locations indicates that the at least one selected spatial location corresponds to a suspected trigger of atrial fibrillation ([0084]: correlations used to indicate abnormal substrate that is a potential target for ablation; [0005]: ablation used to treat atrial fibrillation; [0029]).
In re claim 3, Ghosh discloses wherein the at least one composite correlation score corresponds to an average of the plurality of individual correlation values [0027].
In re claim 8, Ghosh discloses wherein each individual correlation value is based on a linear correlation [0055] between the at least one signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and the at least one signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location ([0055-0057]: each Parson product-moment correlation coefficient is based on a linear dependence between two variables and used to calculate a correlation coefficient; [0061-0062]: correlation coefficient used to determine linear correlation).
In re claim 9, Ghosh discloses further comprising wherein the information representative of the composite correlation score displayed on the electro-anatomical map for at least one of the selected spatial locations [0029] indicates that the at least one selected spatial location corresponds to a suspected trigger of atrial fibrillation ([0029]: spatial maps of correlated electrogram signals may be used to identify atrial fibrillation) if the spatial position has a corresponding composite correlation score that is above a threshold ([0082]: correlation map shows area of a possible rotor; [0029]: rotors may be identified that are associated with atrial fibrillation; [0028]: border between regions of high and low correlation i.e. thresholds are used to identify boundary of a rotor).
In re claim 10, Ghosh discloses wherein the medical procedure is a cardiac ablation procedure [0084].
In re claim 11, Ghosh discloses a system for identifying one or more spatial locations that correspond to suspected triggers of atrial fibrillation in a human heart (see in re claim 1 above), comprising:
a catheter having a plurality of electrodes (see in re claim 1 above),
a processor [0042] communicatively coupled to memory ([0042]: inherent that processor would be connected to memory to record signals from the electrodes; [0035]) and the electrodes ([0042]: processor would be connected to the electrodes to perform features related to recording electrical signals; [0035]),
a display (60) communicatively coupled to the processor [0042],
Regarding the limitations, “the processor operating to:
receive electrical signals from spatial locations within the heart as the catheter moves within the heart during a medical procedure;
for each of a plurality of selected spatial locations in the heart, determine at least one composite correlation score associated with the selected spatial location,
wherein the at least one composite correlation score is based on a plurality of individual correlation values, wherein each individual correlation value is based on a correlation between at least one signal associated with a selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and at least one signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location;
cause an electro-anatomical map of the heart to be displayed on the display,
wherein the map spatially depicts information representative of the composite correlation score determined for each of the selected spatial locations; and
wherein the information representative of the composite correlation score displayed on the electro-anatomical map for at least one of the selected spatial locations indicates that the at least one selected spatial location corresponds to a suspected trigger of atrial fibrillation”,
see in re claim 1 above.
In re claim 13, regarding the limitation, “wherein the at least one composite correlation score corresponds to an average of the plurality of individual correlation values”, see in re claim 3 above.
In re claim 18, regarding the limitation, “wherein each individual correlation value is based on a linear correlation between the at least one signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and the at least one signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location”, see in re claim 8 above.
In re claim 19, regarding the limitation, “wherein the information representative of the composite correlation score displayed on the electro-anatomical map for at least one of the selected spatial locations indicates that the at least one selected spatial location corresponds to a suspected trigger of atrial fibrillation if the spatial position has a corresponding composite correlation score that is above a threshold”, see in re claim 9 above.
In re claim 20, regarding the limitation, “wherein the medical procedure is a cardiac ablation procedure”, see in re claim 10 above.
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.
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 2014/0235988) in view of Shuros et al. (US 2014/0336518).
In re claim 2, Ghosh fails to disclose wherein each individual correlation value is based on a correlation between a first frequency modulated signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and a second frequency modulated signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location.
Shuros teaches generating maps of electrical activity of anatomical structures [0002] and teaches wherein each individual correlation value ([0055]: a correlation vector) is based on a correlation between a first frequency modulated signal associated with a selected electrode ([0055]: dominant frequency at a first electrode location) positioned at a selected spatial location ([0031]: system 10 is deployed in target regions of heart and first electrode would be positioned at a spatial location of the target region [0055, 0004]) and a second frequency modulated signal ([0055]: a dominant frequency at least one adjacent electrode location) associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes ([0055]: wavefront vector is determined based on a different between a domination frequency at a first electrode location and a dominant frequency at an adjacent electrode location and the correlation vector is determined based on the wavefront vector) when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location [0031, 0055].
Shuros further teaches that frequency analysis comprises effective tools to understand pathophysiology of an anatomical structure [0047].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for identifying one or more spatial locations taught by Ghosh, to provide wherein each individual correlation value is based on a correlation between a first frequency modulated signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and a second frequency modulated signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location, as taught by Shuros, because frequency analysis comprises effective tools to understand pathophysiology of an anatomical structure
In re claim 12, regarding the limitation, “wherein each individual correlation value is based on a correlation between a first frequency modulated signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and a second frequency modulated signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location”, see in re claim 2 above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 2014/0235988) in view of Saksena (US 2007/0232949).
In re claim 4, Ghosh fails to disclose wherein each individual correlation value is also based on a correlation between a first amplitude modulated signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and a second amplitude modulated signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location.
Saksena teaches mapping electrode locations [0033] to an anatomical template of a heart [0033] and teaches wherein each individual correlation value ([0033]: correlation of recorded electrical activity of each electrode) is also based on a correlation between a first amplitude modulated signal associated with a selected electrode positioned ([0033]: each electrode is correlated in both time and amplitude) at a selected spatial location ([0054]: method determines target of interventions of ablation; [0008]: electrodes positioned within or near left and right atria or right and left ventricles) and a second amplitude modulated signal associated with another one of a plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location ([0033]: recorded electrical activity at each electrode is correlated to the electrode location with respect to the heart based on amplitude).
Saksena further teaches that the amplitudes reveal magnitude of the electrical activity at various locations of the heart [0004] and may be displayed to a physician [0033, 0048].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for identifying one or more spatial locations taught by Ghosh, to provide wherein each individual correlation value is also based on a correlation between a first amplitude modulated signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and a second amplitude modulated signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location, as taught by Saksena, because amplitudes reveal magnitude of the electrical activity at various locations of the heart and may be displayed to a physician.
In re claim 14, regarding the limitation, “wherein each individual correlation value is also based on a correlation between a first amplitude modulated signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location and a second amplitude modulated signal associated with another one of the plurality of electrodes when the selected electrode is positioned at the selected spatial location”, see in re claim 4 above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 2014/0235988) in view of Shuros et al. (US 2014/0336518) in view of Saksena (US 2007/0232949).
In re claim 5, Ghosh discloses further comprising:
displaying a first electro-anatomical map of the heart [0042, 0082]),
wherein the first map spatially depicts information representative of a first composite correlation score determined for each of the selected spatial locations ([0046]: first spatial display for a first cycle shows correlation map created for each cycle);
wherein the first composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of first individual correlation values ([0027]:first correlation coefficient would be calculated by averaging a first set of simple Pearson correlation coefficients); and
displaying a second electro-anatomical map of the heart ([0046]: recording may be created for each cycle; [0073]: method repeated for each location to create visual for each location),
wherein the second map spatially depicts information representative of a second composite correlation score determined for each of the selected spatial locations ([0046]: second spatial display for a second cycle shows correlation map created for each cycle);
wherein the second composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of second individual correlation values ([0027]: second correlation coefficient would be calculated by averaging a second set of simple Pearson correlation coefficients).
Ghosh fails to disclose
wherein the first composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of first individual correlation values each of which is based on a correlation between frequency modulated signals; and
wherein the second composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of second individual correlation values each of which is based on a correlation between amplitude modulated signals.
Regarding the limitations, “wherein the first composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of first individual correlation values each of which is based on a correlation between frequency modulated signals”, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 2 above, where it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for identifying one or more spatial locations taught by Ghosh, to provide wherein the first composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of first individual correlation values each of which is based on a correlation between frequency modulated signals, as taught by Shuros, for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding the limitations, “wherein the second composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of second individual correlation values each of which is based on a correlation between amplitude modulated signals”, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 4 above, where it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for identifying one or more spatial locations yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the second composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of second individual correlation values each of which is based on a correlation between amplitude modulated signals, as taught by Saksena, for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
In re claim 15, regarding the limitation, “the processor operating to:
cause a first electro-anatomical map of the heart to be displayed on the display,
wherein the first map spatially depicts information representative of a first composite correlation score determined for each of the selected spatial locations;
wherein the first composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of first individual correlation values each of which is based on a correlation between frequency modulated signals; and
cause a second electro-anatomical map of the heart to be displayed on the display,
wherein the second map spatially depicts information representative of a second composite correlation score determined for each of the selected spatial locations;
wherein the second composite correlation score for each of the selected spatial locations is based on a plurality of second individual correlation values each of which is based on a correlation between amplitude modulated signals”,
see in re claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 2014/0235988) in view of Botzer et al. (US 2022/0175302) in view of Kwak et al. (US 2022/0160245).
In re claim 6, Ghosh discloses wherein the at least one signal derived from the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location is generated by collecting a first electrical signal from the selected electrode [0042].
Ghosh fails to disclose applying at least far field reduction processing and band pass filtering to the first electrical signal.
Botzer teaches measuring intracardiac signals [0004] from electrodes [0004] of a catheter [0004] and deriving an electrical signal ([0071]: unipolar mapping signal is a reference to an intracardiac ECG reference; [0066]: method 300 provides multi-step manipulation of electrical signals; [0036]) and applying far field reduction processing [0071].
Botzer further teaches that the far field reduction processing eliminates undesired artifacts [0071].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for identifying one or more spatial locations taught by Ghosh, to provide applying at least far field reduction processing signal, as taught by Botzer, because the far field reduction processing eliminates undesired artifacts.
Regarding the limitation, “…band pass filtering to the first electrical signal” Kwak teaches generating a heat map image [0007] from an electrocardiogram signal [0007] for disease detection [0007], and teaches applying a band pass filter [0033] to an electrocardiogram original signal [0033].
Kwak further teaches that the band pass filter to remove noise from the electrocardiogram original signal [0033].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for identifying one or more spatial locations yielded by the proposed combination, to provide applying band pass filtering to the first electrical signal, as taught by Kwak, because the band pass filter to remove noise from the electrocardiogram original signal.
In re claim 16, regarding the limitation, “wherein the at least one signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location is generated by collecting a first electrical signal from the selected electrode, and applying at least far field reduction processing and band pass filtering to the first electrical signal”, see in re claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 2014/0235988) in view of Baura et al. (US 2006/0111642).
In re claim 7, Ghosh discloses wherein the at least one signal derived from the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location [0042] is generated by
collecting a first electrical signal from the selected electrode [0042],
applying signal processing to the first electrical signal to generate a second electrical signal ([0042]: signal processing unit 58 measures electrical characteristics and would generate a processed i.e. second electrical signal from a first electrical signal).
Ghosh fails to disclose converting the second electrical signal into a binary signal.
Baura teaches evaluating electrocardiograms [0004] and teaches receiving a first electrical signal from a plurality of electrodes ([0253]: ECG waveforms before they are preconditioned), applying signal processing to the first electrical signal to generate a second electrical signal ([0253]: conditioned analog signal) and converting the second electrical signal into a binary signal ([0253]: conditioned analog signal converted to a binary digital format).
Baura further teaches that the binary digital signal allows for the ECG to be analyzed [0253] and displayed [0253].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for identifying one or more spatial locations taught by Ghosh, to provide converting the second electrical signal into a binary signal, as taught by Baura, because the binary digital signal allows for the ECG to be analyzed and displayed.
In re claim 17, regarding the limitation, “wherein the at least one signal associated with the selected electrode positioned at the selected spatial location is generated by collecting a first electrical signal from the selected electrode, applying signal processing to the first electrical signal to generate a second electrical signal, and converting the second electrical signal into a binary signal”, see in re claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Pradeep (US 2021/0290155) discloses a treatment device (abstract) and teaches determining spatial positions of electrodes [0140] in regards to frequency [0140].
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am- 5pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights