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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments combined with the claim amendments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive with respect to the previous rejection(s); however, upon further search and consideration due to the change in scope, an updated grounds of rejection is presented below, necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the new claim amendment, simply controlling a cardiac stimulation device to provide cardiac stimulation therapy, can be read on as broadly as a clinician or medical professional turning a device on or off, remotely, based on the analysis of the data. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained below.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed inventions in claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claim(s) recite(s) a method and a system of classifying a cardiac electrogram.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20, the limitations of determining whether one or more false pause detection criteria are satisfied and classifying the pause-triggered episode, are a process, as drafted that covers performance of the limitations that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional making an estimate of electrogram data based on observed measurement data, and controlling a stimulation device (i.e. turning it on or off) to provide or not provide stimulation therapy.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claim claims 1, 16, and 20, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional steps and elements of receiving a cardiac electrogram sensed by a medical device, and outputting an indication of the classification to a user display device; however, these amount to nothing more than elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional (i.e. “medical device” and “display device”) performing generic functions that are common in the art. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 16, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, the system/method includes additional pre/post extrasolution elements/steps; however, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In this case, elements of general computer are being used to implement abstract idea of receiving and outputting data. Therefore, the recitations do not amount to more than the abstract idea itself, and the claims do not appear to be patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19, the limitations of these claims further define limitations directed to the abstract idea.
As such, claim 1-20 when analyzed as a whole, do not appear to be patent eligible for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D’Abreu whose telephone number is (571) 270-3816. The examiner can normally be reached on 7AM-4PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J D'ABREU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796