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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 11 that the ablation treatment advances prosecution. Examiner disagrees because “cause one or more of the multiple electrodes to deliver ablation to the tissue of the cardiac chamber” is nominal or insignificant relationship to the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). Similar to the nominal connection of aspirin administration and the prevention of ketoacidosis (because aspirin does not treat or prevent ketoacidosis), ablation of the cardiac chamber has no bearing on the displaying, using non-alphanumeric graphic representing activated filters, of rejected EP signals, and is a nominal relationship. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-15, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments obviate the rejection of record. The rejection of the claims of has been withdrawn. See updated rejection below.
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 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16, 18-21, and 23 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 18, it is unclear if the “one or more activatable digital filter” and “each digital filter” are the same or different. If the two phrases are the same, only 1 digital filter is required by the claim, which means the digital filter may not have unique distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic from other digital filters. If the phrases are different because the activatable digital filter is different than the rest of the digital filters, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “each digital filter” in the claim because “digital filter” has not been defined previously in the claim. Examiner will interpret that the phrases of the digital filters are the same, only requiring 1 digital filter.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 recites the limitation "the one or more digital filters" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 13, 16, 19-21, and 23 are rejected as they are dependent on indefinite claims 1, 9, and 18.
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 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16, 18-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 18 recites automatically reject one or more of the multiple EP signals when the filtration criterion is not satisfied, which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (ie. a processor), receiving steps, and visualizing steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are to receiving data, processing data, and displaying multiple electrodes associated with the rejected EP signals, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1 – Statutory categories
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine) and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 9 is directed to a method and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 18 is directed to a tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a product), and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Judicial exception (j.e.)
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 18, the following step is an abstract idea:
“automatically reject one or more of the multiple EP signals when the filtration criterion is not satisfied”, which is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a physician can look at a data set and reject or accept the EP signals of intertest that satisfy a criterion.
In support of a physician being able to perform these operations mentally, Examiner further notes that [0058] of Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507) teaches that a human/practitioner is typically required “to “eyeball” a current beat” when doing EP/EKG signal matching for activating or rejecting digital filters/criteria, which by definition, is a mental process in which a human makes a decision based on the morphology of the EP/EKG signal.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – additional elements to integrate j.e. into a practical application
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 18, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
The generic computer structure/computer implementation uses the digital filters to implement the abstract idea of filtering annotation parameters.
- “multi-electrode cathode” is data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “graphical user interface”, “multiple electrophysiological (EP) signals”, “digital filters”, “scale”, “parameters”, “threshold”, “first and second windows”, and “non-alphanumeric graphic” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)];
- “cause one or more of the multiple electrodes to deliver ablation to the tissue of the cardiac chamber” is nominal or insignificant relationship to the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). Similar to the nominal connection of aspirin administration and the prevention of ketoacidosis (because aspirin does not treat or prevent ketoacidosis), ablation of the cardiac chamber has no bearing on the displaying, using non-alphanumeric graphic representing activated filters, of rejected EP signals, and is a nominal relationship.
Step 2B – significantly more/inventive concept
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
The generic computer structure/computer implementation uses the digital filters to implement the abstract idea of filtering annotation parameters.
- “multi-electrode cathode” is data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “graphical user interface”, “multiple electrophysiological (EP) signals”, “digital filters”, “scale”, “parameters”, “threshold”, “first and second windows”, and “non-alphanumeric graphic” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)];
- “cause one or more of the multiple electrodes to deliver ablation to the tissue of the cardiac chamber” is nominal or insignificant relationship to the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). Similar to the nominal connection of aspirin administration and the prevention of ketoacidosis (because aspirin does not treat or prevent ketoacidosis), ablation of the cardiac chamber has no bearing on the displaying, using non-alphanumeric graphic representing activated filters, of rejected EP signals, and is a nominal relationship.
The additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 18, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (ie. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, processor, and electrodes, along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The “multi-electrode catheter” is claimed very generically and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. These are well-understood, routine and conventional structure in the diagnostic art since Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507) teaches multi-electrode catheters [generic data gathering structure] for obtaining EP signals ([0030]-[0033]).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, and 8, 10-11, 13, and 16, 19-21, and 23 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 1, 9, and 18. The dependent claim limitations are directed to data visualization of extra-solution activity (claims 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 20-21, and 23) and to processing user input [generic structure] for further processing of extra-solution activity (claims 2, 10, and 19), which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In summary, claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16, 18-21, and 23 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 18, the phrase “each digital filter being displayed and coded in the first window with a distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic that is unique with respect to any other digital filter” only requires 1 digital filter, which means that there are no unique digital filters with respect to others.
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, 8-9, 16, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507)(cited in non-final rejection dated 09/01/2022)(Hereinafter Koyrakh) in view of Erdemir et al. (US 20160324485)(Hereinafter Erdemir) and Yellin (US 20160310030)(Hereinafter Yellin).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 18, Koyrakh teaches a cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic system and method ([0002] “The instant disclosure relates to electrophysiological mapping, such as may be performed in cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic …to systems”), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 1(28)); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, which when executed (Fig. 1(8) [00225] “System 8 can also be used to measure electrophysiology data at a plurality of points along a cardiac surface and store the measured data”), cause the one or more processors to:
receive multiple electrophysiological (EP) signals acquired by multiple electrodes of a multi-electrode catheter that are in contact with tissue of a cardiac chamber (Fig. 3 and 4 which show the 5 and 12 EKG leads [EP signals], see Fig. 4 of Callout C. [0025] “FIG. 1 shows a schematic diagram of an exemplary system 8 for conducting cardiac electrophysiology studies by navigating a cardiac catheter and measuring electrical activity occurring in a heart 10 of a patient 11 and three-dimensionally mapping the electrical activity and/or information related to or representative of the electrical activity so measured. System 8 can be used, for example, to create an anatomical model of the patient's heart 10 using one or more electrodes.” The electrode must be in contact with the cardiac tissue in the cardiac chamber, as seen in Fig. 3.);
cause one or more activatable digital filters to be displayed in a first window of a graphical user interface, each digital filter having a displayed adjustable scale representing an acceptable range or threshold of a filtration criterion (See Fig. 4 Callout F (first window) with checkmarks/activated digital filters along with the adjustable scale for each digital filters including one for the 12 EKG/EP signal match. Fig. 4 Callout F can be activated by check mark for all inclusion criteria [digital filters], which is displayed on the GUI. Fig. 5 contains sliders/scales with an acceptable range of parameter score of 80 from the EP signal. Examiner notes that a dialable and adjustable scale are the same. See the difference between the checked and unchecked box of “12-lead match” (one of the few digital filters) of Figs. 3 and 4 in Callout F.);
in a second window of the graphical user interface that is displayed simultaneously with the first window, cause an image of the cardiac chamber and electrodes within the cardiac chamber to be displayed ([0025] “ cardiac electrophysiology studies by navigating a cardiac catheter and measuring electrical activity occurring in a heart 10 of a patient 11 and three-dimensionally mapping the electrical activity and/or information related to or representative of the electrical activity so measured. System 8 can be used, for example, to create an anatomical model of the patient's heart 10 using one or more electrodes.” GUI of Fig. 3-5 on the left shows the second window with the electrode and cardiac image. Examiner notes the term electrode is recited on the GUI on the bottom left of Figs. 3 and 4 showing the distance between each electrode.);
apply, in real-time, the one or more digital filters, each digital filter corresponding to a respective filtration criterion, to automatically reject one or more of the multiple EP signals when the respective filtration criterion is not satisfied ([0049] EP signal data points that do not satisfy the defined inclusion criteria/digital filter are not added (rejected) to the electrophysiological map. Abstract teaches the EP data points are added automatically based on defined inclusion criteria of [0049] that is satisfied. This would also mean that the rejected data points would also be rejected automatically. See Fig. 5(550). See Fig. 4 Callout F (first window) with checkmarks/activated digital filters along with the adjustable scale for each digital filters including one for the 12 EKG/EP signal match. See the right panel where the point labels of the EP signals where the annotation parameters are filtered (by check mark) 3D labels (not check marked) and 3D annotations (check marked), which is filtered from the EP signals. See the check-mark difference between Fig. 3 and 4 for point labels. The “distinctive graphics” refers to the different terminology used for the different digital filters, which allows each digital filter of Fig. 5 (e.g. CL, score, LAT) to be distinct from the other.) and
in the second window of the graphical user interface, cause each of the displayed multiple electrodes associated with the rejected one or more EP signals, to be displayed with the distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic associated with the activated digital filter that rejected respective the EP signal (Fig. 4 the digital filters of Callout F (that rejected the EP signal data point) share the same font of the distinctive word/term “electrode” showing each electrode with its distance on the bottom left side of the GUI and what makes it distinctive is the term “electrode” versus the different types of digital filters in Callout F. Also note the multiple electrodes as the GUI illustrates that the electrodes are distanced from one another. ).
However, Koyrakh does not teach cause an image of the cardiac chamber and each of the multiple electrodes within the cardiac chamber to be displayed. Erdemir, in the same field of endeavor, teaches real-time EP mapping of a cardiac surface model and plotting EP data points based on inclusion criteria (Abstract), and further teaches cause an image of the cardiac chamber and each of the multiple electrodes within the cardiac chamber to be displayed (Fig. 4 (13a-d) [0051] “Another suitable inclusion criterion is electrical coupling between the electrodes on catheter splines 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d and the tissue.”) to plot several EP data points on the surface of the anatomical model ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic system of Koyrakh, with the cause an image of the cardiac chamber and each of the multiple electrodes within the cardiac chamber to be displayed of Ramanathan, because such a modification would allow to plot several EP data points on the surface of the anatomical model.
However, Koyrakh does not teach each digital filter being displayed and coded in the first window with a distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic that is unique with respect to any other digital filter and in the second window of the graphical user interface, cause each of the displayed multiple electrodes associated with the rejected one or more EP signals to be displayed with the distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic associated with an activated digital filter that rejected the respective EP signal and causing one or more of the multiple electrodes to deliver ablation to the tissue of the cardiac chamber. Yellin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches electroanatomic mapping of sensed EP signals obtained from electrodes on a catheter and mapped as an image on a GUI (Abstract), and further teaches each digital filter being displayed and coded in the first window with a distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic that is unique with respect to any other digital filter (See Fig. 2 where pane 39 splits the scale and the image into two separate windows, note the line between both images. See LAT (digital filter) where the different shapes of the LAT scores are mapped on the scale of the digital filter and the cardiac image (both windows). Although the digital filter is not activated in Fig. 2, the system is still capable of displaying the “rejected”/inconsistent EP signals that are not applied in Fig. 4 ([0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
in the second window of the graphical user interface, cause each of the displayed multiple electrodes associated with the rejected one or more EP signals to be displayed with the distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic associated with an activated digital filter that rejected the respective EP signal (See Fig. 2 where pane 39 splits the scale and the image into two separate windows, note the line between both images. See LAT (digital filter) where the different shapes of the LAT scores are mapped on the scale of the digital filter and the cardiac image (both windows). Although the digital filter is not activated in Fig. 2, the system is still capable of displaying the “rejected”/inconsistent EP signals that are not applied in Fig. 4 ([0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
causing one or more of the multiple electrodes to deliver ablation to the tissue of the cardiac chamber ([0026] “for example by evaluation of the electrical activation maps, can be ablated by application of thermal energy, e.g., by passage of radiofrequency electrical current through wires in the catheter to one or more electrodes at the distal tip 18, which apply the radiofrequency energy to the myocardium.”) to relieve the operator from the burden analyzing inconsistent signals ([0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic system of Koyrakh, with the each digital filter being displayed and coded in the first window with a distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic that is unique with respect to any other digital filter and in the second window of the graphical user interface, cause each of the displayed multiple electrodes associated with the rejected one or more EP signals to be displayed with the distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic associated with an activated digital filter that rejected the respective EP signal and causing one or more of the multiple electrodes to deliver ablation to the tissue of the cardiac chamber of Yellin, because such a modification would allow to relieve the operator from the burden analyzing inconsistent signals.
Regarding claim 8, and 16 and 23, claims 1, 9, and 18 are obvious over Koyrakh, Yellin, and Erdemir. Koyrakh does not teach colored and pattern distinctive graphics. Yellin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches electroanatomic mapping of sensed EP signals obtained from electrodes on a catheter and mapped as an image on a GUI (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic associated with each activated digital filter comprises one or more of a color and a pattern ( See the different shapes in Fig. 2-4.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) to relieve the operator from the burden analyzing inconsistent signals ([0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic system of Koyrakh, with the each digital filter being displayed and coded in the first window with a distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic that is unique with respect to any other digital filter and in the second window of the graphical user interface, cause each of the displayed multiple electrodes associated with the rejected one or more EP signals to be displayed with the distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic associated with an activated digital filter that rejected the respective EP signal and causing one or more of the multiple electrodes to deliver ablation to the tissue of the cardiac chamber of Yellin, because such a modification would allow to relieve the operator from the burden analyzing inconsistent signals.
Claims 2, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507)(cited in non-final rejection dated 09/01/2022)(Hereinafter Koyrakh) in view of Erdemir et al. (US 20160324485)(Hereinafter Erdemir) and Yellin (US 20160310030)(Hereinafter Yellin) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markovitz et al. (US 20190307344) (Hereinafter Markovitz) and Ramanathan et al. (US 20120101398)(Hereinafter Ramanathan).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 19, claims 1, 9, and 18 are obvious over Koyrakh, Yellin, and Erdemir. Koyrakh does not teach a user input that reconfigures the scale setting of one or more digital filters in response to the displayed multiple electrodes indicated with the same distinctive graphics of the corresponding activated digital filter that rejected the EP signal. Markovitz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electrophysiology map of a portion of a patient's anatomy using an electroanatomical mapping system, similar to the device of Koyrakh, and further teaches user input that reconfigures the scale setting of one or more digital filters of the rejection criteria in response to the displayed multiple electrodes indicated with the non-alphanumeric distinctive graphic of the corresponding activated digital filter that rejected the respective EP signal (Claim 6 “displaying a graphical inclusion criterion sensitivity control at a neutral sensitivity; accepting user input to adjust the graphical inclusion criterion sensitivity from the neutral sensitivity to an adjusted sensitivity; and the electroanatomical mapping system automatically computing the target number of electrophysiology data points using the adjusted sensitivity and the number of electrophysiology data points in the subset of the plurality of electrophysiology data points having associated inclusion data that satisfies the plurality of inclusion criteria.”) to adjust the inclusion criteria ([0048]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Koyrakh, with the user input that reconfigures the scale setting of one or more digital filters in response to the displayed multiple electrodes indicated with the same distinctive graphics of the corresponding activated digital filter that rejected the EP signal of Markovitz, because such a modification would allow to adjust the inclusion criteria.
However, Markovitz and Koyrakh do not teach an input device. Ramananthan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the visualization of EP signals over the surface on an organ (heart) (Abstract and Fig. 9), similar to the device of Koyrakh, and further teaches comprising an input device, wherein the processor is configured to receive, via the input device ([0070] “A user can employ the GUI 82 via a user input device (e.g., a mouse, keyboard, touch screen or the like)”) to set parameters and variables as well as to control display techniques ([0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic system of Koyrakh, with the input device of Ramanathan, because such a modification would allow to set parameters and variables as well as to control display techniques.
Claims 3, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507)(cited in non-final rejection dated 09/01/2022)(Hereinafter Koyrakh) in view of Erdemir et al. (US 20160324485)(Hereinafter Erdemir) and Yellin (US 20160310030)(Hereinafter Yellin) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20160106336) (Hereinafter Li).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 20, claims 1, 9, and 18 are obvious over Koyrakh, Yellin, and Erdemir. Koyrakh teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause at least some of the EP signals to be plotted in a third window of the graphic user interface, and ([0050] “Regardless of whether or not the inclusion data for the collected electrophysiology data point satisfies the defined inclusion criteria, a geometry point corresponding to the location data for the electrophysiology data point can optionally be added to the cardiac geometry model underlying the electrophysiology map (block 570).” Fig. 4 the digital filters of Callout F (that rejected the EP signal data point) share the same font with the term “electrode” showing each electrode with its distance on the bottom left side of the GUI and what makes it distinctive is the term “electrode” versus the different types of digital filters in Callout F. Examiner further points to Callout C that plots every EP point with its respective position (e.g. “ECG V5”) in which the ECG was taken, in the same font as Callout F and “electrode”. Since all the EP signals are all shown in Callout C (third window) of Fig. 4, the rejected EP signal is amongst all of the EP signals of Callout C, and therefore would contain the same distinctive graphics that would show the position at which the ECG was taken (e.g. “ECG V5” or “ECG V4”) . ).
However, Koyrakh does not teach indicating each of the one or more rejected EP signal with the distinctive graphic of the corresponding activated digital filter that rejected the respective EP signal. Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches displaying an electrophysiological map pertaining to the anatomical region of the heart relating the EP data points of EP characteristics (Abstract), and further teaches indicate each of the rejected one or more EP signals with the …graphic of the corresponding activated digital filter that rejected the respective EP signal (See Fig. 5c where the arrow indicating rejected EP signal from the anatomical structure from the mean CL (distinctive graphic) that rejected that EP signal. See [0058] “FIG. 5c illustrates the types of EP data points that are excluded in the map of FIG. 5c (that is, EP data points that do not exhibit electrophysiological characteristics of interest to the practitioner).” Examiner notes that the claim does not require the distinctive graphic to be in the third window. ) to provide a practitioner important information of interest ([0058]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the program of Koyrakh, with the indicating each of the one or more rejected EP signal with the distinctive graphic of the corresponding activated digital filter that rejected the respective EP signal of Li, because such a modification would allow to provide a practitioner important information of interest.
However, neither Koyrakh nor Li teach the distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic on the EP signal. Although Li discloses the arrow signifying the rejected EP signal from the image to the EP signal, the distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic on the EP signal can be used to visualize the filters associated with the rejected signal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to distinctive non-alphanumeric graphic on the EP signal, for the purpose of visualize the filters associated with the rejected signal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507)(cited in non-final rejection dated 09/01/2022)(Hereinafter Koyrakh) in view of Erdemir et al. (US 20160324485)(Hereinafter Erdemir) and Yellin (US 20160310030)(Hereinafter Yellin) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeo et al. (Journal of Arrhythmia, Pulmonary Vein Reconnection Mapping with Advisor HD Grid Demonstrating Local EGM which were not visible on Tacticath ablation catheter, 11/06/2018)(Previously Cited in Non-Final action dated 09/01/2022)(Hereinafter Yeo).
Regarding claims 5 and 21, claims 1, 9, and 18 are obvious over Koyrakh, Yellin, and Erdemir. Koyrakh do not teach an orientation of the electrodes. Yeo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the use of the Ensite Velocity 3D mapping system with its respective display panel. Specifically, page 2, figure 1, teaches graphical illustration of the orientation of the electrodes positioned on top of the posterior antrum of the left upper pulmonary vein of the heart. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic system of Koyrakh, with the electrodes to the left upper pulmonary vein of the heart of Yeo, because such a modification would allow to position the electrodes and record the electrogram (EGM) signal.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507)(cited in non-final rejection dated 09/01/2022)(Hereinafter Koyrakh) in view of Erdemir et al. (US 20160324485)(Hereinafter Erdemir) and Yellin (US 20160310030)(Hereinafter Yellin) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeo et al. (Journal of Arrhythmia, Pulmonary Vein Reconnection Mapping with Advisor HD Grid Demonstrating Local EGM which were not visible on Tacticath ablation catheter, 11/06/2018)(Previously Cited in Non-Final action dated 09/01/2022)(Hereinafter Yeo).
Regarding claim 13, claims 1, 9, and 18 are obvious over Koyrakh, Yellin, and Erdemir. Koyrakh do not teach an orientation of the electrodes. Yeo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the use of the Ensite Velocity 3D mapping system with its respective display panel. Specifically, page 2, figure 1, teaches graphical illustration of the orientation of the electrodes positioned on top of the posterior antrum of the left upper pulmonary vein of the heart. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic system of Koyrakh, with the electrodes to the left upper pulmonary vein of the heart of Yeo, because such a modification would allow to position the electrodes and record the electrogram (EGM) signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796