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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 8-12, 18-20 have been amended. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-22 are currently pending and have been considered by the Examiner.
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, 5-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 21 recite a method, and claims 11-13, 15-20, and 22 recite a system comprising processors. Each of a method and a system falls within one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1: Analyzing,
Identifying,
Outputting, sets as preconfiguration settings amounts to a step of generating rejection criteria defaults for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings, based on the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information. This step is a judgement mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper. A human can generate rejection criteria defaults by writing down the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information on a piece of paper. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Acquiring, by a filtering engine executed by one or more processors, a data set of electrophysical (EP) maps for one or more procedures amounts to mere data-gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). A filter engine executed by processors amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
A device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to a generic component for applying the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements as disclosed above, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activities as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the abstract ideas disclosed above. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Acquiring, by a filtering engine executed by one or more processors, a data set of electrophysical (EP) maps for one or more procedures is analogous to receiving data over a network, which the courts have recognized as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). A filter engine executed by processors amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
A device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to a generic component for applying the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements as disclosed above, in combination with the abstract ideas, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas as they are well-understood, routine and conventional activities as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the abstract ideas disclosed above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Analyzing the data set to associate, with each EP map in the data set, at least one filter and the one or more filter settings is an evaluation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The filtering engine amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 incorporates the rejection of claim 2.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 2 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The at least one filter comprises cycle length filter, a local activation time (LAT) stability filter, a position stability filter, or a minimal voltage filter amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The procedure information comprises a correlation of time and quality, or a map quality amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The one or more filter settings comprise an identification of each filter and an exact setting of that filter used in generating each electrophysical map amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Identifying the optimized filter set is an observation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: A machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that captures one or more setting attributes based on mapping time and quality metrics amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Identifying the optimized filter set is an observation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: A machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that deletes one or more setting attributes based on a plurality of the respective numbers of EP data points deleted amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The rejection criteria defaults provide automatic acquisition of electrophysical data points by filtering signals that degrade mapping accuracy amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The rejection criteria defaults are outputted on a per user basis amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites a system which implements the same features as the method of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
In Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, “a memory storing program code for a filtering engine thereon” and “one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the program code” amount to generic computer components for applying the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-13 and 15-20 each recites a system which implements the same features as the method of claims 2-3 and 5-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 21 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Identifying the optimized filter set, the filter configuration, and the procedure information comprises assigning higher scores to parameter configurations associated with fewer interventions is an observation and judgement mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The procedure information further comprises parameter configurations, reconfigurations needed during the one or more procedures, and numbers of interventions associated with the parameter configurations amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 recites a system which implements the same features as the method of claim 21 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Below is the Examiner’s response to the Applicant’s arguments filed 08/12/2026.
Applicant’s Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 101 – Step 2A Prong 1: On pages 8-10 of the remarks, the Applicant argues that amended claims 1 and 11 are not generic but recite a particular EP-acquisition implementation. Applicant cites the August 4 2025 USPTO Memo and Ex parte Desjardins. Applicant argues amended claims 1 and 11 reflect an improvement.
On page 11 of the remarks, the Applicant argues the claimed workflow is not commensurate with a physician merely thinking about which filter might work well. A human may form a general judgment that one setting appears preferable. The claims, however, require the filtering engine to maintain and process structured acquisition relationships among multiple EP maps, the settings used for each map, respective collected-point and deleted-point counts, and optimized device preconfiguration output.
The Applicant further argues amended claims 1 and 11 are analogous to eligible Claim 2 of USPTO Guidance Example 37. The Applicant argues that here, the claims likewise require technical processing of EP-map acquisition records and map-specific data relationships by a filtering engine, rather than merely attaching a generic processor to a human judgment.
Examiner’s Response: The Applicant’s citation to Desjardins will be addressed in the Examiner’s responses to arguments under Step 2A Prong 2.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the rejection of claim 1 under 101, in Step 2A Prong 1, analyzing… the data set [of EP maps] to associate, with each EP map in the data set, one or more filter settings and procedure information utilized in acquiring the EP map, wherein the one or more filter settings and procedure information at least include a respective number of EP data points collected and a respective number of EP data points deleted during acquisition of the EP map is an evaluation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper. A human could reasonably understand which filter settings cause data points to be collected and deleted during their acquisition, based on each EP map.
Identifying… an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information for the one or more procedures based at least on a comparison, across the EP maps in the data set, of the associated one or more filter settings and the respective numbers of EP data points collected and deleted is an observation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper. A human could compare filter settings and respective numbers of the EP data points which were collected and deleted to identify an optimal filter set, filter configuration and procedure information.
Outputting… the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria defaults for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings amounts to a step of generating rejection criteria defaults for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings, based on the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information. This step is a judgement mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper. A human can generate rejection criteria defaults by writing down the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information on a piece of paper.
On page 10 of the remarks under “Step 2A, Prong One”, the first paragraph summarizes the steps of claim 1, and each step is a mental process. “Associate acquisition settings and respective collected and deleted EP-point counts with each EP map in a data set” is judgement mental process. “Compare those map-specific records across the data set” is an observation mental process. “Produce optimized rejection-criteria defaults and device preconfiguration settings” is a judgement mental process. The claims are recited at a high level of generality. It is noted that “processor-executed filtering engine” is not part of the judicial exceptions.
The Office Action has not generalized claim 1 as merely inspecting a few values to form a subjective opinion, or as a physician merely thinking about which filter might work well, which the Applicant argued on pages 10 and 11. The current Office Action has considered every limitation of claim 1 alone and in the context of the claim as a whole.
On page 11 of the remarks, the second full paragraph also summarizes the steps of claim 1, and each step is a mental process. Maintaining and processing structured acquisition relationships among multiple EP maps, the settings used for each map, respective collected-point and deleted-point counts, and optimized device preconfiguration settings are mental processes, as explained above.
Claim 2 of Example 37 is eligible because it does not recite any judicial exceptions in Step 2A Prong 1, but pending claim 1 recites abstract ideas. The claims are not analogous. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument that claim 1 is not properly characterized as merely the mental process of reviewing information and selecting filter settings. The Examiner’s response has explained how the “analyzing,” “identifying,” and “outputting” steps are mental processes, excluding the filtering engine and acquisition device.
Applicant’s Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 101 – Step 2A Prong 2: On page 12 of the remarks, the Applicant argues that the claims integrate any exception into a practical application. The Applicant argues the implementation of claim 1 meaningfully limits any abstract idea.
On pages 13-14, the Applicant argues that pending claim 1 is analogous to the USPTO’s claim 1 of Example 40, claim 1 of Example 37, claim 3 of Example 47, and to the claim in Core Wireless. On page 14, the Applicant argues claim 1 satisfies the requirements provided in the Desjardins memo. On page 14, the Applicant argues the limitation of claim 1 defines the technical form and operative purpose of the output, and that it is part of the claimed solution.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims integrate any exception into a practical application.
In the rejection of claim 1, in Step 2A Prong 2, acquiring, by a filtering engine executed by one or more processors, a data set of EP maps for one or more procedures amounts to mere data-gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). Each of a filter engine executed by processors and a device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to a generic component for applying the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements as disclosed above, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activities as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the abstract ideas.
In response to the first two paragraphs of the section “Step 2A, Prong Two” on page 12, the current Office Action has not generalized claim 1 as merely gather EP data, evaluate it, and report a preferred setting. Nor has the current Office Action generalized claim 1 as “analyze data to optimize filters on a computer.” The rejection of claim 1 as provided above has considered every claim limitation in its entirety. Converting historical, map-specific acquisition records into rejection-criteria defaults and preconfiguration settings are abstract ideas. Steps including associate the settings and respective collected and deleted EP-point counts with each EP map, compare those records across the dataset, and use the comparison to generate a technically defined output are abstract ideas. It is noted that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and (a)(II).
In response to the final paragraph on page 12 of the remarks, using acquisition histories, including exact filter settings and collected and deleted point information, to identify optimized settings and output them as rejection criteria for subsequent acquisition are mental processes, which cannot provide the improvement.
Pending claim 1 is not analogous to claim 1 of Example 40. This claim is eligible because the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition. Pending claim 1 recites no such limitations additional elements. In claim 1, the use of specific technical acquisition data for improving the configuration of a technical data-acquisition process is recited as an abstract idea, which cannot provide a technical improvement.
Pending claim 1 is not analogous to claim 1 of Example 37 for the reasons provided in the Examiner’s first response to the Applicant’s arguments above. In claim 1, generating rejection-criteria defaults and preconfiguration settings is recited as an abstract idea, which cannot provide a technical improvement, and the EP acquisition device amounts to a generic component for applying the abstract ideas on a generic computer.
Pending claim 1 is not analogous to claim 3 of Example 47. This claim is eligible because steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Pending claim 1 recites no such limitations as additional elements. In claim 1, outputting or generating an optimized filter set, configuration, and procedure information as rejection-criteria defaults and preconfiguration settings is recited as an abstract idea, which cannot provide a technical improvement, and the acquisition device amounts to a generic component for applying the abstract ideas on a generic computer.
The claim in Core Wireless is eligible because it recites an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Pending claim 1 recites no such limitations as additional elements. Any optimization recited by claim 1 is part of a mental process abstract idea. Also, claim 1 does not positively recite using map-specific acquisition information to configure EP acquisition equipment, as explained at the end of this response.
Claim 1 does not satisfy eligibility requirements provided by the Desjardins memo. In claim 1, the map-specific associations, cross-map comparison, optimization, and preconfiguration output are all recited as parts of abstract ideas, which cannot provide a technical improvement.
It is noted that the limitation “for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points” is an intended use for the rejection criteria defaults. Claim 1 does not positively recite steps of acquiring subsequent EP data points and rejecting them based on a rejection criteria defaults. Nor does the claim positively recite steps of configuring the acquisition device. There are no details about any structures of the acquisition device or how it might be configured with the preconfiguration settings. Although the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information are outputted, this does not necessarily mean the method must perform subsequent acquisition of EP data sets. For the purpose of examination under 101, claim 1 effectively ends with merely outputting (i.e., generating) the rejection criteria defaults.
Applicant’s Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 101 – Step 2B: On page 15, the Applicant argues that the claim elements, considered as an ordered combination, provide significantly more than the exception. The Applicant argues the relevant combination is the claimed map-specific acquisition architecture and its use to generate operational defaults for EP acquisition equipment. The Applicant cites the August 4, 2025 Memo.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that the combination of claim elements provide significantly more than the exception. The steps of processing historical EP maps through map-specific acquisition associations, comparing settings and respective collected and deleted EP-point counts across the maps, identifying an optimized configuration from those relationships, and outputting (i.e., generating) the result as rejection-criteria defaults a preconfiguration settings are all mental process abstract ideas.
In Step 2B, acquiring a data set of EP maps for one or more procedures is analogous to receiving data over a network, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity. A filtering engine executed by one or more processors and an acquisition device amount to a generic computer components. The claim does not disclose any detailed structures of the filtering engine executed by processors that would amount to more than a generic computer component for executing the steps of claim 1. Nor does the claim disclose any details of configuring the acquisition device with the preconfiguration settings that would amount to more than mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas.
It is not necessary to show that each additional element, alone and in combination with the claim as a whole, is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. This Office Action has demonstrated that the additional elements as disclosed above, in combination with the abstract ideas, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas as they are well-understood, routine and conventional activities as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the abstract ideas disclosed above.
Lastly, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that eligibility of claim 1 is uncertain. The reasons claim 1 are ineligible have been provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher H. Jablon whose telephone number is (571)270-7648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached at (571)270-3169. 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.
/A.H.J./Examiner, Art Unit 2127
/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights