Ex Parte Bartal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201712518172 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/518,172 06/08/2009 Meir Bartal 2007P02608WOUS 2791 22116 7590 09/29/2017 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER PENG, BO JOSEPH Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MEIR BARTAL, JAN BOESE, ASSAF GOVARI, MATTHIAS JOHN, ASSAF PREISS, and NORBERT RAHN, Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LISA M. GUIJT, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision2 rejecting claims 57-76. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft and Biosense Webster, Inc. Br. 3. 2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated September 10, 2013 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 57 and 76 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 57, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 57. A method for visually assisting a catheter application on a heart of a patient, comprising: acquiring an image of the patient by a C-arm X-ray device; acquiring electroanatomical mapping data of the patient by an electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system; determining a coordinate transformation between a coordinate system of the C-arm x-ray device and a coordinate system of the electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system based on the acquired image and the electroanatomical mapping data before the catheter application; calibrating the C-arm X-ray device and the electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system in relation to each other based on the coordinate transformation; determining a position of the patient during the acquisition of the image and during the acquisition of the electroanatomical mapping data; and assigning the determined positions3 of the patient to the image and the electroanatomical mapping data. REJECTIONS I. Claims 57, 68-71, 73, 74, and 76 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boese (US 2005/0251028 Al; published Nov. 10, 2005) and Verard (US 2004/0097805 Al; published May 20, 2004). Notably, there is no antecedent basis for the plural “positions.” 2 3 Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 II. Claim 58 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boese, Verard, Govari (US 2004/0102696 Al; published May 27, 2004), and Gilboa (US 6,574,498 Bl; issued June 3, 2003). III. Claims 59-63 and 67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boese, Verard, and Foley (US 2005/0085714 Al; published Apr. 21, 2005). IV. Claims 64-66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boese, Verard, Foley, and Mitschke (US 2004/0013240 Al; published Jan. 22, 2004). V. Claim 72 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boese, Verard, and Collins (US 6,535,574 Bl; issued Mar. 18, 2003). VI. Claim 75 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boese, Verard, Fuimaono (US 2007/0287902 Al; published Dec. 13,2007). ANALYSIS Rejection I Regarding independent claim 57, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Boese teaches acquiring an image of the patient by a C-arm X-ray device (Final Act. 3 (citing Boese ^ 11)) and acquiring electroanatomical mapping data of the patient by an electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system {id. (citing Boese ^ 4)). The Examiner also finds that Boese teaches determining a coordinate transformation between a coordinate system of the C-arm x-ray device and a coordinate system of the electromagnetic position- 3 Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 detection and mapping system, and calibrating the C-arm x-ray device and the electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system in relation to each other based on the coordinate transformation. Id. (citing Boese 36, 37). The Examiner also determines that an example of a “catheter application,” as claimed, “is catheter ablation.” Final Act. 3 (citation omitted); see also Ans. 17-18 (“FIG. 1 shows a device comprising a C-arm X-ray device 1 and an electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system 2, which device is used for visually assisting a catheter application on a living being, for example, a catheter ablation on the heart H of the patient P.”) (citing Spec. ^ 4[0]). The Examiner finds that Boese discloses determining the coordinate transformation before a catheter application (i.e., catheter ablation), because Boese teaches that “a translation matrix (which is 4 Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 a coordinate transformation) [representing] the relationship in the 2D-3D4 5 6 registration” is determined before ablation.5,6 Ans. 18 (Boese 26-27). Appellants argue that, in Boese, landmark based registration “is carried out after the catheter is guided into the ventricle to be treated,” and not before, as claimed. Br. 6 (emphasis added). As set forth supra, claim 57 recites “[a] method for visually assisting a catheter application on a heart of a patient” (emphasis added), and Appellants’ Specification discloses that Figure 1 shows a device “used for visually assisting a catheter application ... for example, a catheter ablation on the heart H of the patient P.” Spec. ^ 40. The Specification distinguishes between a catheter application that uses a catheter for ablation (i.e., an ablation catheter) and the use of a catheter for imaging or mapping (i.e., a mapping catheter). Although the Specification recognizes that “the mapping function and the ablation function are frequently combined in one catheter” 4 The Examiner determines, and Appellants do not dispute, that Boese’s 2D fluoroscopy image corresponds to the claimed acquired image, and that Boese’s 3D mapping data corresponds to the claimed acquired electroanatomical mapping data. See Ans. 18. 5 Cf Final Act. 3^1 (wherein the Examiner finds that Boese “fails to teach'1'’ (emphasis added) determining the claimed coordinate transformation before the catheter application, as claimed, and relies on Verard for teaching this claim limitation. Final Act. 3^1 (citing Verard 69, 73-75, 78, 146). 6 Cf Ans. 18 (wherein the Examiner finds that because Boese discloses that “coordinate transformation is done in real-time through the real-time registering [of] both data, ” it would have been obvious “that such transformation is done before catheter ablation” (emphasis added), because “an operator would require to identify the location/position of the tip of the catheter within the body of the patient before the ablation application.”). 5 Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 (see, e.g., id. at 4), this distinction is clear in the Specification, such that the claim term “catheter application” refers to a procedure performed with a catheter (i.e., catheter ablation), but does not include using a catheter for imaging or mapping. Boese discloses that “[i]n landmark-based 2D-3D registration, at least 4 landmarks are started, with the catheter, in the immediate vicinity of the ventricle to be treated . . . , and are thus identified in both the 2D fluoroscopy image and the 3D mapping data.” Boese ^ 31. Boese also discloses that “[b]y recording the 3D position of a landmark using the EP mapping system, the 2D position is stored simultaneously in the 2D fluoroscopy image, [such that] a projection matrix is automatically defined which can be used to allocate each pixel of the 2D fluoroscopy image precisely to a 3D point in the 3D mapping data.” Id. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Boese’s landmark- based 2D-3D registration (or coordinate transformation) is determined by a catheter performing a mapping function before the same catheter performs an ablation function (i.e., a catheter application).7 The Examiner also finds that Boese discloses determining a position of a patient during the acquisition of the image and data, as claimed, because Boese teaches that “easily identifiable anatomical points are preferably used 7 Appellants do not argue that Boese’s landmark-based 2D-3D registration fails to disclose the claimed coordinate transformation, or that Boese fails to disclose the claimed step of calibrating, as determined by the Examiner supra. See Br. 8-14; Final Act. 3. 6 Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 as landmarks for registration, such as—for example—the superior vena cava, the inferior vena cava, fossa, coronary sinus, the tricuspid valve in the right atrium or the 4 pulmonal veins and the mitral valve in the left atrium.” Ans. 16 (quoting Boese ^ 32). The Examiner determines that because “these landmarks [represent] the position of the patient,. . . Boese teaches determining a position of the patient during the acquisition of the image and the acquisition of the electroanatomical mapping data,” as claimed. Id. The Examiner further finds that because Boese discloses that “[i]n landmark based 2D-3D registration, at least 4 landmarks are started, with the catheter, in the immediate vicinity of the ventricle to be treated or directly in the ventricle, and are thus identified in both the 2D fluoroscopy image and the 3D mapping data,” Boese “teaches assigning the determined positions of the patient to the image and the data,” as claimed.8’9 Id. at 16-17 (emphasis added). Appellants argue that Boese does not “teach or suggest” the claimed steps of determining a position of the patient during the acquisition of the 8 Cf. Ans. 15 (wherein the Examiner finds that Boese inherently determines a position of the patient during the acquisition of the image and data, and assigns the position to the image and data, as claimed). 9 Cf. Ans. 24 (wherein the Examiner determines that Boese discloses determining a position of the patient during the acquisition of the image and data, and assigning the position to the image and data, as claimed, because, in Boese, “when [a] patient moves, re-calculation of the projection] matrix is performed,” which “is a change[] to the coordinate transformation based on the changes in the patient position,” such that “the coordinate transformation is adapted to incorporate any changes in the position of the 7 Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 image and during the acquisition of the electroanatomical mapping data; and assigning the determined positions to the image and electroanatomical mapping data, as claimed. Br. 6. In support, Appellants submit that, in Boese, the patient’s position is not determined during imaging or mapping, but rather, “during the procedure,” wherein “any movement of the patient leads to a recalculation of the projection matrix, which is done either by repeating the landmark/surface based registration or with the help of an orientation or position sensor on the patient.” Id. at 6-7 (citing Boese 29, 30). However, Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s determination that because Boese establishes the patient’s position, by establishing the position of anatomical points within the patient, during the use of the catheter for mapping, Boese’s method meets the claim limitation of determining a position of the patient during acquisition of the image and data, as disclosed in paragraph 32 of Boese. For example, Appellants do not dispute that identifying the position of anatomical points within the patient fails to meet the claim limitation of determining a position of a patient. To the extent the Examiner may have presented this finding for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants declined to have the Examiner’s finding designated as a new ground by filing a petition, and instead proceeded with an appeal to this Board. See C.F.R. § 41.40(a). Thus, Appellants’ argument patient determined during the acquisition of the image and acquisition of the electroanatomical mapping data.”). 8 Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Further, Appellants’ argument also does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that because Boese identifies the anatomical points within the patient in the 2D image and EP mapping data, Boese assigns the patient position, as claimed. Regarding Verard, Appellants argue that “Verard does not teach or suggest a transformation between a coordinate system of the C-arm x-ray device and a coordinate system of the electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system” (Br. 7) or that such transformation is determined before the catheter application, as claimed {id. at 8). Appellants also argue that “Verard’s registration technique does not calibrate the C-arm x-ray device and the electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system, as claimed, since no transformation has been established between the coordinate systems of the two devices.” Id. Appellants further argue that Verard does not teach or suggest determining the patient’s position, or assigning the determined positions to the image and data, as claimed. Id. However, the Examiner relies on Boese for all of these disclosures (or teachings), as set forth supra, and in view of findings presented in the Examiner’s Answer. Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to Verard do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to Boese. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 57. Appellants rely on the same arguments for the patentability of independent claim 76, and therefore, for the same reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 76. Br. 6-8. 9 Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 68-71, 73, and 74, and therefore, for the same reasons stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 68-71, 73, and 74. Br. 8. Rejections II V Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of claim 58-67 and 72, which depend from independent claim 57. Br. 9-12, and thus, for the same reasons stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 58-67 and 72. Rejection VI Claim 75, which depends from independent claim 57, recites, in relevant part, “wherein the position of the patient. . . [is] taken into account in merging image data . . . with the electroanatomical mapping data.” Br. 17-18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Boese “fails to teach” this limitation, and relies on Fuimaono, Final Act. 12 (citing Fuimaono, Abstract, 23)). Appellants argue that Fuimaono “does not make any reference to the position of the patient,” and therefore, cannot disclose the limitations of claim 75. As discussed supra, the Examiner also finds that Boese discloses determining a coordinate transformation before catheter application (i.e., catheter ablation), and also determining a position of the patient (i.e., using anatomical points) during acquisition of the image and data. Boese further discloses that “[t]he result of each 2D-3D registration is a projection matrix, which enables each pixel of the 2D fluoroscopy image to be precisely 10 Appeal 2015-000772 Application 12/518,172 allocated to a 3D point in the 3D mapping data,” such that “[t]his projection matrix can therefore be used for displaying the 3D mapping data with the same position and orientation as the 2D fluoroscopy image, and for superimposing the two displays as required.” Boese ^ 25 (emphasis added). Thus, according to the Examiner’s findings wherein the landmarks are a determination of a patient’s position, Boese discloses taking into account the patient’s position determined during data and image acquisition in merging the data and image data, as claimed. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 75. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 57-76 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation