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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 3, 8-9, 13, 15, and 18-19 have been amended. Claims 4 and 14 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 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 15-20 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 and 5-10 recite a method, and claims 11-13 and 15-20 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,
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).
The one or more filter settings and procedure information at least includes a number of data points collected and a number of data points deleted in acquiring each of the EP maps in the data set amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to mere data-gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). A device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 and fields of use 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).
The one or more filter settings and procedure information at least includes a number of data points collected and a number of data points deleted in acquiring each of the EP maps in the data set amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points is analogous to transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). A device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 and fields of use 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 capture 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 number of 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 default provides 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 default is 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamilov et al. (US 20190279773 A1) in view of Volpe et al. (US 20160175598 A1) and Sorkin et al. (US 7945585 B1). All references were cited in the PTO-892 issued 02/12/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Shamilov teaches: A method comprising: acquiring, by a
analyzing, by the ([0032]-[0033] and [0036] discloses measuring a number of signals to create a LAT map, and the LAT analysis module 35 runs a simulation using LAT maps stored in the memory to model arrhythmia. “Procedure information” includes the measured signals, and analyzing the LAT maps incorporates the measured signals.)
… preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points. ([0033]-[0034]. “A device” is the probe, and “preconfiguration settings” are any settings that configure the probe to measure signals.)
However, Shamilov does not explicitly teach: a filtering engine
analyzing, by the filtering engine, the data set to capture one or more filter settings and procedure information utilized in acquiring the EP maps in the data set, wherein the one or more filter settings and procedure information at least includes a number of data points collected and a number of data points deleted
identifying, by the filtering engine, an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information for the one or more procedures based at least on the number of data points collected and the number of data points deleted; and
outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points.
But Volpe teaches: acquiring, by a filtering engine points collected ([0063], lines 12-14, and all of [0114] and [0122] discloses adjusting a voltage sensitivity threshold of a pacing device during an initial fitting. A filtering engine includes medical device 100 operated by a cardiologist. Filter settings and procedure information includes the sensitivity threshold determined over a number of data points collected.)
identifying, by the filtering engine, an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information for the one or more procedures based at least on the number of data points collected ([0122], final 6 lines. An optimized filter set, filter configuration, and procedure information correspond to the voltage sensitivity threshold, below which signals are filtered out.)
outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets ([0122], final 6 lines. Rejection criteria default are signals with a voltage below the sensitivity threshold, and electrophysical data includes ECG signals.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Volpe’s adjustable voltage sensitivity threshold into Shamilov. A motivation for the combination is to better detect the subject’s intrinsic cardiac activity. (Volpe, [0122])
However, Shamilov and Volpe do not explicitly teach: a number of data points deleted
But Sorkin teaches: acquiring, by a filtering engine points collected and a number of data points deleted (C. 54, L. 5-16; C. 62, L. 53 to C. 63, L. 16; and Fig. 26. An agent 2300 determines a certain number of messages have been viewed or deleted by a particular user via a user interface. The agent learns which messages should be delivered to the user. “Filter settings” are the user’s preferences for types of messages to receive.)
identifying, by the filtering engine, an optimized filter set, filter configuration
outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Sorkin’s agent into Shamilov and Volpe for learning which EP data points should be delivered to a physician during a procedure. A motivation for the combination is to automatically hide irrelevant data points acquired during the procedure.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
However, Shamilov does not explicitly teach: wherein the filtering engine analyzes the data set to capture at least one filter and the one or more filter settings.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the filtering engine analyzes the data set to capture at least one filter and the one or more filter settings. ([0122])
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Sorkin also teaches this limitation at C. 62, L. 53 to C. 63, L. 16.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 2,
However, Shamilov and Sorkin do not explicitly teach: wherein 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.
But Volpe teaches: wherein 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. ([0122], lines 1-11 discloses detecting signals above a voltage threshold, which filters out signals below a minimal voltage filter.)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
Shamilov teaches: wherein the procedure information comprises a correlation of time and quality, or a map quality. ([0019] teaches that cardiac arrhythmia indicates a lower quality of heart functionality than normal heart rhythm. Any EP map that indicates arrhythmia comprises a low map quality. [0020], [0021], lines 4-12, [0035] teaches acquiring an EP map that indicates arrythmia.)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
Shamilov teaches: generating each electrophysical map. ([0033], lines 5-7)
However, Shamilov does not explicitly teach: wherein 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.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the one or more filter settings comprise an identification of each filter and an exact setting of that filter used ([0122], where an identification of a filter is a sensitivity threshold, and an exact setting is the voltage value.)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1. Sorkin also teaches this limitation at C. 54, L. 5-16.
Regarding claim 7, Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
Shamilov teaches: mapping time and quality metrics ([0020], lines 1-7 discloses a quality of match, which corresponds to “quality metrics” as claimed. [0021], lines 4-12 discloses local activation time map, which corresponds to “mapping time” as claimed.)
However, Shamilov and Volpe do not explicitly teach: wherein a machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that captures one or more setting attributes based on mapping time and quality metrics identifies the optimized filter set.
But Sorkin teaches: wherein a machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that captures one or more setting attributes based on [user input]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Sorkin’s agent into Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin for learning which EP data points should be delivered to a physician during a procedure. A motivation for the combination is to automatically hide irrelevant data points acquired during the procedure.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
However, Shamilov and Volpe do not explicitly teach: wherein a machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that deletes one or more setting attributes based on a plurality of the number of data points deleted identifies the optimized filter set.
But Sorkin teaches: wherein a machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that deletes one or more setting attributes based on a plurality of the number of data points deleted identifies the optimized filter set. (C. 54, L. 5-16 and C. 62, L. 53 to C. 63, L. 16. Deleting setting attributes based on deleted points amounts to deleting “aircrafts” from the user’s profile.)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
Shamilov teaches acquiring EP maps. However, Shamilov and Sorkin do not explicitly teach: wherein the rejection criteria default provides automatic acquisition of electrophysical data points by filtering signals that degrade mapping accuracy.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the rejection criteria default provides automatic acquisition of electrophysical data points by filtering signals that degrade [graphing]
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
However, Shamilov does not explicitly teach: wherein the rejection criteria default is outputted on a per user basis.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the rejection criteria default is outputted on a per user basis. ([0122], lines 5-11, where a “user” is a subject)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1. Sorkin also teaches this limitation at C. 62, L. 44-51 and C. 63, L. 6-16.
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.
Shamilov teaches: A system comprising: a memory storing program code for a filtering engine thereon; and ([0035], line 1 to “processor 40” in line 4 and [0036], line 1 to “software” in line 2 discloses a memory 44 and software.)
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the program code to cause the system to perform: ([0035], line 1 to “processor 40” in line 4 and [0036], line 1 to “software” in line 2.)
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.
Response to Arguments
The following is the Examiner’s response to the Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026.
Applicant’s First Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 101: On pages 7, Applicant argues that claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter because it recites a specific technological improvement in electrophysiology mapping and signal-acquisition technology, implemented in and for medical device equipment. On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the Office Action characterizes claim 1 at too high a level of abstraction. Claim 1 does not merely recite “analyzing data” or “determining settings.” Limitations of claim 1 are directed to a specific technological workflow for controlling later operation of EP acquisition equipment. The focus of the claim is not on an abstract idea divorced from technology, but on improving the way an EP mapping device is configured and operated in later acquisitions.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that the Office Action characterizes claim 1 at too high a level of abstraction. In Step 2A Prong 1, the Office Action states the entire limitation “analyzing… the data set to capture one or more filter settings and procedure information utilized in acquiring the EP maps in the data set” is an evaluation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, and states the entire limitation “identifying… an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information for the one or more procedures based at least on the number of data points collected and the number of data points deleted” is an observation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Applicant’s assertion that the Office Action characterizes claim 1 at too high a level of abstraction is unclear. Claim 1 lacks details explaining how filter settings and procedure information are used to acquire the EP maps in the data set, or how a number of data points which have been collected and deleted are used to identify an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information. The claim does not clearly recite a specific technological workflow because it lacks details connecting the EP maps, filter settings, procedure information, optimized filter set and filter configuration beyond a high level of generality.
The mental process limitations as indicated above cannot provide a technical improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a), states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” MPEP 2106.05(a), subsection II. states, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
Applicant’s Second Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Page 9 states even assuming, arguendo, that some aspect of claim 1 could be said to involve data evaluation, claim 1 integrates any such concept into a practical application. The claim does not end with merely reporting or displaying a result. Instead, claim 1 outputs optimized rejection criteria and preconfiguration settings for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets by a device used for acquisition of EP data points. Thus, the claimed result is applied directly to the technical operation of acquisition equipment in a later EP procedure. Page 10 cites the Enfish and Finjan courts in stating current USPTO guidance likewise points examiners to improvements in computer functionality or another technology or technical field as relevant to eligibility.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that claim 1 integrates judicial exceptions into a practical application. 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 default. Claim 1 does not positively recite steps of acquiring subsequent EP data points and rejecting them based on a rejection criteria default. For the purpose of examination under 101, claim 1 effectively ends with merely reporting or displaying a result.
In Step 2A Prong 2, outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to mere data-gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). A device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 9 is also recited at a high level of generality. The term “provides” broadly links the rejection criteria default with automatic acquisition of EP data points. Automatic acquisition of EP data points by filtering signals that degrade mapping accuracy is an intended use for the rejection criteria default. Claim 9 does not positively recite a step of filtering signals that degrade mapping accuracy by applying the rejection criteria default to subsequent EP data points.
Unlike the improvements provided by Enfish and Finjan, claim 1 neither provides a technical improvement nor integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application for at least the reasons provided above.
Applicant’s Third Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Page 11 states that if the Office were nevertheless to proceed to Step 2B, claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The ordered combination of limitations is a concrete technical solution: using prior EP maps, acquisition-specific point-collection and point-deletion metrics, and optimized filter configurations to generate rejection-criteria defaults for subsequent acquisition by EP mapping equipment. On the present record, that ordered combination cannot be dismissed as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional for purposes of § 101.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The feature of generating rejection-criteria defaults for subsequent acquisition by EP mapping equipment cannot provide a technical solution because this feature is an abstract idea which corresponds to the claim limitation “identifying… an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information”. The feature “for subsequent acquisition by EP mapping equipment” is an intended use of rejection criteria defaults, as explained in the Examiner’s response to the Applicant’s second arguments, and claim 1 does not recite positive steps of acquiring subsequent EP data points and rejecting them based on a rejection criteria default.
Only additional elements which have been identified as insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A Prong 2 need to be evaluated as well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. The limitation of outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points is analogous to transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Applicant’s First Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 103: On page 13, Applicant respectively submits that Shamilov is directed to EP-map use, not EP-map acquisition optimization. Shamilov stores and uses EP/LAT maps to run a simulation for arrhythmia modeling and identifying candidate locations. Shamilov’s disclosed focus is using an already-obtained map as an input to a pacing simulation, not learning filter settings from prior map-acquisition outcomes to improve later acquisition.
Claim 1, on the other hand, requires analysis of the EP-map data set to capture filter settings and procedure information utilized in acquiring the EP maps, including at least number of data points collected, and number of data points deleted, and then using those acquisition specific metrics to identify an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information, and outputting them as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition. Applicant respectfully submits that is a very different technical objective from Shamilov's simulation workflow.
In rejecting elements of claim 1, the present Office Action frames the claim a level of abstraction that removes the EP-map acquisition context and the specific role of filter/rejection criteria in later EP acquisition.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Shamilov was not relied upon for the features of learning filter settings from prior map-acquisition outcomes to improve later acquisition. Shamilov was not relied upon for the features of capturing filter settings including a number of data points deleted, and then using those acquisition specific metrics to identify an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information, and outputting them as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition. Volpe and Sorkin were relied upon for teaching these missing limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that the Office Action frames the claim at a level of abstraction. Shamilov was relied upon for teaching acquiring EP maps and analyzing the EP maps, while Volpe and Sorkin were relied upon for teaching filters and rejection criteria in later EP acquisition.
Applicant’s Second Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 103: Pages 14-15 argues Volpe’s threshold adjustment is not the claimed EP-map optimization. Volpe fails to teach learning EP-map acquisition defaults from prior EP-map point-retention/deletion outcomes. Sorkin is not analogous art. Even if analogous, Sorkin’s “deleted messages” are not the claimed number of data points deleted in acquiring each of the EP maps.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Both Shamilov and Volpe teach collecting voltages of a patient’s heart, and Volpe further teaches adjusting a voltage sensitivity threshold of a pacing device (voltage sensor). Claim 1 broadly recites identifying an optimized filter settings and outputting the optimized filter settings as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisitions. The voltage sensitivity threshold is analogous to EP-map acquisition defaults because both are default settings for a physiological voltage-measuring device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Volpe’s voltage sensitivity threshold as Shamilov’s EP-map acquisition default in order to better detect the subject’s intrinsic cardiac activity (Volpe, [0122]).
In response to applicant's argument that Sorkin is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Sorkin is analogous art because Sorkin and pending claims 1 and 9 are in the field of automatically deleting data points from an electronic device based on data points a user previously deleted. See application paragraphs [0084], [0088]. The limitations “acquiring… a data set of electrophysical (EP) maps for one or more procedures” and “a number of data points deleted in acquiring each of the EP maps in the data set” is broadly recited in pending claim 1. Acquired EP maps are data points which remain after collecting a number of data points and deleting some of them. Nothing in the claim indicates that the collected data points are different from the data set of EP maps.
The combination of Shamilov and Volpe teaches identifying optimized filter settings based on the number of data points collected, and outputting the optimized filter settings as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets (see Shamilov [0032]-[0036] and Volpe [0114] and [0122]).
However, Shamilov and Volpe do not explicitly teach that the optimized filter settings are based on a number of data points deleted. But Sorkin at C. 54, L. 5-16; C. 62, L. 53 to C. 63, L. 16; and Fig. 26 teaches an agent learning which messages should be filtered automatically from a user’s inbox based on the user’s past behavior.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Sorkin’s agent into Shamilov and Volpe for learning which EP data points should be delivered to a physician during a procedure. A motivation for the combination is to automatically hide irrelevant data points acquired during the procedure.
Applicant’s Third Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 103: Page 15 states that Applicant respectfully submits that a proper rationale for the combination is lacking. Applicant respectfully submit that there is not an explanation for why a PHOSITA would have modified Shamilov’s arrhythmia simulation framework with Volpe's pacing-device sensitivity threshold, and then Sorkin's message-agent training based on viewed/deleted messages, to arrive at a system that specifically mines prior EP-map acquisition settings, correlates them with collected/deleted EP-point counts, identifies optimized EP-map filter/rejection settings, and preconfigures later EP-acquisition devices using those learned defaults. Page 16 states the rejection relies on impermissible abstraction and hindsight reconstruction rather than a teaching or suggestion of the claimed EP=acquisition optimization workflow.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Shamilov at [0032]-[0036] teaches measuring EP data points including cardiac signals to generate a LAT map, but Shamilov does not explicitly teach filtering any of these signals based on a number of data points collected and a number of data points deleted.
Volpe at [0114] and [0122] teaches filtering signals below a threshold voltage, and Sorkin at C. 54, L. 5-16; C. 62, L. 53 to C. 63, L. 16; and Fig. 26 teaches learning which messages should automatically be filtered from a user’s inbox based on the user’s past behavior. As explained in examiner’s response to applicant’s second argument, a motivation for modifying Shamilov with Volpe’s voltage filter in order to better detect the subject’s intrinsic cardiac activity (Volpe, [0122]), and a motivation for modifying Shamilov/Volpe with Sorkin’s filtering agent is to automatically hide irrelevant data points acquired during the procedure.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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