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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026, which incorporated the After Final Amendment filed 12/04/2025, has been entered.
Remarks
This action is in response to the RCE filed 01/07/2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are pending and are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101
Independent claims 1 and 19 have been amended to include a limitation of displaying the representation of the histogram on the display. Applicant argues (see Remarks, pages 8-9) that the amended claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As claimed, the claims recite a method and system for processing cardiac information, comprising receiving cardiac electrical signals, generating an activation waveform from the cardiac electrical signals, receiving a set of window parameters, determining confidence values for each window size, for each window size, selecting a central window position, calculating correlations between the central window activation and a shifted window activation, determining confidence values based on the correlations, comparing the confidence values to a designated confidence value and a window size, determining local cycle lengths for each of the signal sections, generating a local cycle length histogram based on the local cycle lengths, generating a representation of the local cycle histogram having indications of the local cycle lengths as annotations on a cardiac map, and displaying the representation on the display. These are limitations that are directed towards data gathering and analysis steps. The amended limitation of displaying the representation of the histogram on the display is considered to be a data output step, as the step simply requires displaying the representation. As best understood, the crux of the invention is the data analysis performed in order to process the cardiac information. Any alleged improvement resides within the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, there is no further description, in the claims or the specification, of any particular technology for performing the steps recited in the claim other than generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity as tools to apply the abstract idea. Nor does the claimed invention use a particular, or special, machine. In other words, the claims “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus” capable of rescuing them from the realm of an abstract idea. Further, these components are being used to perform the extra-solution activity of data gathering and analysis (i.e. an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are applied with any particular machine, (3) effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Please See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(c), (e)-(h). Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 has an extra period at the end of the claim on page 7.
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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and system for processing cardiac information. To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04. The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed towards a method and claim 19 is directed towards a system, and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claim 1 recites a method and claim 19 recites a system for processing cardiac information, comprising receiving cardiac electrical signals, generating an activation waveform, receiving a set of window parameters, determining confidence values for each window size, for each window size, selecting a central window position, calculating correlations between the central window activation and a shifted window activation, determining confidence values based on the correlations, comparing the confidence values to a designated confidence value and a window size, determining local cycle lengths for each of the signal sections, generating a local cycle length histogram based on the local cycle lengths, generating a representation of the local cycle histogram having indications of the local cycle lengths as annotations on a cardiac map, and displaying the representation on the display.
The limitation of processing cardiac information, as drafted in claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper. For example, processing cardiac information in the context of this claim encompasses a user obtaining a set of cardiac signals, generating an activation waveform, obtaining a set of window parameters, determining confidence values for each window size, selecting a central window position for each window size, calculating correlations between the central window activation and a shifted window activation, determining confidence values based on the correlations, comparing the confidence values to a designated confidence value and a window size, determining local cycle lengths for each of the signal sections, generating a local cycle length histogram based on the local cycle lengths, generating a representation of the local cycle histogram having indications of the local cycle lengths as annotations on a cardiac map, and displaying the representation.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
As claimed, the crux of the invention is the data analysis performed in order to process the cardiac information. The steps of receiving cardiac electrical signals and receiving a set of window parameters are considered to be the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering by no more than routine means. The steps of generating an activation waveform, receiving a set of window parameters, determining confidence values for each window size, for each window size, selecting a central window position, calculating correlations between the central window activation and a shifted window activation, determining confidence values based on the correlations, comparing the confidence values to a designated confidence value and a window size, determining local cycle lengths for each of the signal sections, generating a local cycle length histogram based on the local cycle lengths, and generating a representation of the local cycle histogram having indications of the local cycle lengths as annotations on a cardiac map are considered to be data analysis steps. The amended limitation of displaying the representation of the histogram on the display is considered to be a data output step, as the step simply requires displaying the representation.
The additional elements of a processing unit, cardiac mapping system, and display are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing unit to receive and analyze and display to output information). These additional elements generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Specifically, the additional elements a processing unit, cardiac mapping system, and display are generically recited computing elements that perform the steps of gathering, analyzing, and outputting data.
Further, the processing unit as described in the instant specification is described as being implemented in generic and well-known computing devices (e.g. Pars. [0097]-[0099]: describing the processing unit can be implemented in one or more computing device, which may include “any type of computing device suitable for implementing embodiments of the disclosure. Examples of computing devices include specialized computing devices or general-purpose computing devices such "workstations," "servers," "laptops," "desktops," "tablet computers," "hand-held devices," "general-purpose graphics processing units (GPGPUs)," and the like, all of which are contemplated within the scope of FIGS. 1 and 2 with reference to various components of the system 100 and/or processing unit 200”).
Accordingly, these additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination is not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processing unit, cardiac mapping system, and display amounts to no more than generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks.
These additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-15, 17, 18, and 20 depend on claims 1 and 19 and recite the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 19 from which they depend. Further, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the additional limitations recited in claims 2, 3, 4, and 20 (i.e. further defining the selection of the locations) are simply further defining the data that can be gathered during the data gathering and data analysis steps. The additional limitations recited in claims 5-7 (i.e. further defining the calculated correlations) are further data analysis steps. The additional limitations recited in claims 9-13 (i.e. determining duty cycles and generating histograms) are further data analysis steps. The additional limitations recited in claims 14 and 15 (i.e. further defining the calculated confidence values) describe further data analysis steps. The additional limitations of claims 17 and 18 (i.e. generating histograms) is a further data analysis step. The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception explained above (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves any technology or includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provides a conventional computer implementation, i.e. the computer (processor) is simply a tool to perform the claimed invention.
While there are no prior art rejections for claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20, they are not indicated as allowable due to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796