Ex Parte Olson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2016

11715919 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111715,919 0310912007
55962 7590
Wiley Rein LLP
Patent Administration
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
04/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric S. Olson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
OG-04 l 400US I
82410-0106
CONFIRMATION NO.
6156
EXAMINER
SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 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):
ptodocket@wileyrein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC S. OLSON
Appeal2014-002959
Application 11/715,919
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eric S. Olson (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 28--45, which are the only
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-002959
Application 11/715,919
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for determining a location of an object in a three-
dimensional localization field created by a localization system,
compnsmg:
providing a catheter having a plurality of electrodes, each
of which is spaced from an adjacent electrode by a known
electrode spacing distance;
providing a three-dimensional lookup table for use by the
localization system, wherein the table comprises reference data
correlating locations of an object within the localization field
with measurements made by the localization system when the
object is at different locations;
placing the catheter into the localization field;
using the localization system to determine the location of
each of the plurality of electrodes based on the reference data in
the three-dimensional lookup table;
calculating an observed distance between each pair of
adjacent electrodes from the determined locations of each of the
plurality of electrodes;
determining an error signal by comparing the observed
distance between at least one pair of adjacent electrodes to the
known electrode spacing between the at least one pair of adjacent
electrodes; and
adjusting the reference data in the three-dimensional
lookup table based on the error signal to more accurately measure
the spacing of the electrodes.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 6-8, 28, 32, and 35-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf (US 5,983, 126, iss. Nov.
9, 1999) and Whayne (US 2002/0115941 Al, pub. Aug. 22, 2002).
2
Appeal2014-002959
Application 11/715,919
IL Claims 2-5, 29-31, 33, 34, and 40-44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf, Whayne, and
Aylward (US 2003/0053697 Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2003).
III. Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wittkampf, Whayne, and Tremblay (US 2006/0084867 Al,
pub. Apr. 20, 2006).
IV. Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wittkampf, Whayne, Aylward, and Tremblay.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Independent claims 1 and 28 are directed to methods comprising steps
of providing a calibration object (claim 28) or a catheter (claim 1) having a
plurality of calibration elements (claim 28) or electrodes (claim 1) spaced at
known spacing distances; calculating an observed spacing distance between
at least two of the calibration elements/electrodes; and generating a
calibration or error signal based on a comparison of the observed spacing
distance and the known spacing distance. Appeal Br. 15-17 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds:
Wittkampf fails to disclose[] calculating an observed
distance between each pair of adjacent electrodes . . .,
determining an error signal by comparing the observed distances
between at least one pair of adjacent electrodes to the known
electrode spacing between the at least one pair of adjacent
electrodes and adjusting the reference data in the three-
dimensional look-up table based on the error signal to more
accurately measure the spacing of the electrodes.
Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2014-002959
Application 11/715,919
Relying on Whayne' s teaching of comparator 464 comparing three-
dimensional roving digital coordinates 452 to location output 334 or 336
generated by navigation algorithm 454, the Examiner determines that "it
would have been obvious to ... update the correlation locations based look
up table on the update calculation [sic] performed by Whayne in order to
provide an accurate visualization of the catheter." Final Act. 4 (citing
Whayne i-fi-1201, 202, 211, 229, 243). The Examiner explains that, because
Whayne's navigation algorithm 454 generates location output 334 knowing
spatial variations in voltages sensed within the field at roving electrode 68
from transmitting basket electrodes 18, and knowing the physical
dimensions and spacing among basket electrodes 18, "Whayne discloses that
distances/spacing of electrodes is used to determine the location of the
electrodes." Ans. 13; see Whayne i1211.
Appellant argues that "Whayne cannot teach or suggest use of 'error'
between an 'observed' distance and an 'actual' distance, at least because
Whayne lacks adjacent electrodes having a known spacing." Appeal Br. 11;
Reply Br. 4. Appellant contends that the Examiner pointing to the distance
between transmitting basket electrode 18 and roving electrode 68 of Whayne
"highlights a fundamental shortcoming in the Examiner's position: because
the roving electrode is moving relative to the basket electrode, and indeed is
an entirely separate device (see Whayne, Fig. 3), there cannot be a known
spacing between basket electrode 18 and the roving electrode 68." Reply
Br. 4. For the reasons that follow, Appellant's argument underscores a
deficiency in the Examiner's rejection.
Whayne discloses that navigation algorithm 454 generates location
output 334 by analyzing spatial variations in voltages sensed on electrode 68
4
Appeal2014-002959
Application 11/715,919
carried by roving instrument/catheter 14 "within the field, in terms ot: e.g.,
variations in phase, or variations in amplitude, or both, or variations in
impedances between the transmitting and sensing electrodes[, k ]nowing
these [spatial] variations in the electrical field, and knowing the physical
dimensions and spacing among the basket electrodes 18." Whayne i-f 211
(bold omitted). Whayne's "location output 334 locates ... roving electrode
68 within the space defined by ... basket 58, in terms of its position relative
to ... multiple basket electrodes 18." Id. (bold omitted). Whayne also
analyzes a real-time image acquired by imaging device 72 to mathematically
compute, based on video input signals, three-dimensional digital basket
coordinates 450 and three-dimensional roving digital coordinates 452. Id.
i-fi-1227, 242, 243. Comparator 464 of Whayne's navigation application A3
then compares three-dimensional digital roving coordinates 452 (i.e., the
coordinates of the actual location of roving electrode 68) to location output
334 or 336 (i.e., the coordinates of the observed location of roving electrode
68 calculated by navigation algorithm 454 from the localization system) to
generate an error output. Id. i-f 243. The error output is then communicated
to iterative calibration loop 460. Id.
Thus, Whayne teaches comparing the actual location of the roving
electrode on a roving instrument, as determined from a real-time image, with
the location of the roving electrode calculated by the navigation algorithm
(i.e., the localization system). Neither Wittkampf nor Whayne teaches
comparing the observed/calculated spacing distance between calibration
elements/electrodes on a calibration object/catheter and a known spacing
distance between said calibration elements/ electrodes, as called for in
independent claims 1 and 28. Although the spacing distance of basket
5
Appeal2014-002959
Application 11/715,919
electrodes 18 of Whayne is known, and is taken into account in calculating
the observed roving electrode location (i.e., location output 334 or 336), this
known spacing distance is not compared with an observed basket electrode
spacing distance to generate the error/calibration signal. Rather, as
Appellant points out, Whayne compares the position of roving electrode 68
(located on roving instrument 14), calculated from navigation algorithm 454,
to the actual position of roving electrode 68, as calculated from image
analysis function 442, relative to basket electrodes 18 (located on an entirely
separate device (i.e., basket structure 58)). See Reply Br. 4; Whayne, Fig. 2.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 28, or claims 6-8, which depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf and Whayne.
Independent claim 32, unlike claims 1 and 28, does not require
calculating an observed spacing distance between at least two calibration
elements/electrodes of a calibration object spaced at known spacing
distances and generating a calibration or error signal based on a comparison
of the observed spacing distance and the known spacing distance. Rather,
claim 32 recites, in pertinent part, an "error processor to determine
differences between observed distances and actual distances of an object
located in [sic] within the localization field, said distances being relative to
the three-dimensional coordinate system" created by the modeling processor.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Whayne teaches an error processor as called for in claim 32. As
discussed above, comparator 464 of Whayne' s navigation application A3
compares the observed position (i.e., distance relative to the three-
dimensional coordinate system of the localization system defined by basket
6
Appeal2014-002959
Application 11/715,919
electrodes 18) of roving electrode 68 (located on roving instrument 14 ),
calculated from navigation algorithm 454, to the actual position (i.e.,
distance relative to the three-dimensional coordinate system) of roving
electrode 68, as calculated from image analysis function 442. Whayne
i-f 243. Thus, Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 32 as unpatentable over Wittkampf and
Whayne. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 32, as well as
claims 35-38, which depend from claim 32, and for which Appellant does
not present any separate arguments for patentability, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf and Whayne. See Appeal Br. 10-
11.
Rejection II
Claim 40 is directed to a localization system with error correction
having limitations similar to claims 1 and 28, including, in pertinent part,
"an error processor to determine differences between the known spacing
distances of the calibration elements [of a calibration object] and measured
distances between the calibration elements." Id. at 20 (Claims App.).
Claims 41--44 depend from claim 40. Id. at 20-21.
The Examiner relies on Aylward for its teaching of the use of a Kernel
function, and not for any teaching that might remedy the deficiency in the
rejection of claims 1 and 28 discussed above. See Final Act. 7-9.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 2-5, which depend from claim 1, or claims 29-31, which depend
from claim 28, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf,
Whayne, and Aylward. See Appeal Br. 15-17 (Claims App.). For the same
7
Appeal2014-002959
Application 11/715,919
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 40-44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf, Whayne, and Aylward.
In contesting the rejection of claims 33 and 34, which depend from
claim 32, Appellant argues merely that "[t]he addition of Aylward does not
address the shortcomings of the combination of Wittkampf and Whayne."
Appeal Br. 12. Having not been apprised of any such shortcomings vis-a-vis
claim 32, as discussed above, Appellant's argument thus does not apprise us
of error in the rejection of claims 33 and 34. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wittkampf, Whayne, and Aylward.
Rejection III
In contesting the rejection of claim 39, which depends from claim 32,
Appellant argues only that "[t]he shortcomings of the combination of
Wittkampf and Whayne with respect to claim 32 ... are not ameliorated or
overcome via the addition of Tremblay." Id. Having not been apprised of
any such shortcomings, Appellant's argument thus does not apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 39. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf,
Whayne, and Tremblay.
Rejection IV
Claim 45 depends from claim 40. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). In
rejecting claim 45, the Examiner relies on Tremblay only for its teaching of
generating a magnetic field to detect electromagnetic detectors located in an
instrument inside of a patient, and not for any teaching that would overcome
the deficiency in the rejection of claim 40 discussed above. Final Act. 10.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection
8
Appeal2014-002959
Application 11/715,919
of claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampt:
Whayne, Aylward, and Tremblay.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 6-8, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf and Whayne is
REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 32 and 35-38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf and Whayne is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-5, 29-31, and 40-44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf, Whayne, and
Aylward is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wittkampf, Whayne, and Aylward is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wittkampf, Whayne, and Tremblay is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wittkampf, Whayne, Aylward, and Tremblay is
REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9