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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09 Oct 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-5, 9-14, 20, and 22-23 have been amended, claims 6-8, 15-19, and 21 have been canceled, and claims 24-29 have been added. Thus, claims 1-5, 9-14, 20, and 22-29 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09 Oct 2025, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant's arguments filed 09 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
No amendments have been made to claims 1, 10, and 23 to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding the terms “the data points” and “improved”, as explained in the previous office action and below. Therefore, these rejections are maintained below.
New rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are also made below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 09 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
Applicant argues that “The claims focus on a particular asserted improvement to a specific technology rather than an idea of itself. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 to 36” (Remarks, page 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), “It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility … The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts”. The specification of the instant application discloses that “Processor 28 typically comprises a general-purpose computer with software programmed to carry out the functions described herein” (paragraph [0035]). The specification does not disclose specific details about how the processor carries out the instructions recited in the claims, only that the processor does so. Therefore, the claims are not directed to an improvement of computer capabilities, and merely invoke computers as a tool.
Applicant further argues “As in McRO, the improvement is achieved by recited rules for gating and selection rather than by claiming a result” (Remarks, page 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea.” Unlike McRO, the claims of the instant application are directed to abstract ideas, as explained in further detail below.
Applicant further argues “As in CardioNet, the claims recite a concrete method for handling rhythm changes to improve detection and mapping rather than broadly claiming diagnosis or the observation of a natural law” (Remarks, pages 15-16). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification does not include details about how a change in the type of arrhythmia is detected, only that the processor does so (paragraph [0029]).
Applicant further argues
The claims are also tied to a particular machine and technological environment.
They require electrodes of a catheter positioned within a patient's heart, an interface to
acquire the signals, and a processor that executes the claimed gating and spatial-coverage
enforcement while the ablation is underway. The mapping console is not a
generic computer processing arbitrary data; it is a specialized machine configured to
receive intracardiac signals and to build electroanatomical maps under procedure-time
constraints. The USPTO guidance recognizes that such integration to a particular
machine confirms a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
(Remarks, page 16)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although claim 1 (and similarly claim 23) of the instant application recites “a catheter”, the only interaction with the catheter described is receiving data from the catheter, which does not improve the functioning of the catheter itself. Claim 10 recites “a processor” and “an interface”, but these are recited at a high level of generality. The specification also discloses that “Processor 28 typically comprises a general-purpose computer with software programmed to carry out the functions described herein” (paragraph [0035]). These components are well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Any mathematical operations are integrated into a practical application
Applicant argues
The presence of a histogram or limit calculation does not make the claim abstract
where, as here, the mathematics is a tool embedded in a larger intraprocedural control
scheme. The histogram supplies limits that directly govern which signals the console will
accept and which it will reject, and those limits are automatically tightened in response to
a clinically recognized event, namely a change in arrhythmia type. The system then
enforces spatial coverage and generates a new map from the accepted signals that
satisfy the tightened limits and the retuned parameters. This is a textbook practical
application in which mathematical processing improves the operation of a specific device
in a specific field. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348 to 49. The claims
do not preempt all uses of histograms or all ways of mapping cardiac tissue; they claim a
narrow solution that requires the recited pipeline and the procedural context.
(Remarks, pages 16-17)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP 2106.05(f), “in Thales Visionix, the particular configuration of inertial sensors and the particular method of using the raw data from the sensors was more than simply applying a law of nature”. The claims of the instant application do not require a particular configuration of electrodes or sensors in order to carry out the recited abstract ideas.
According to MPEP 2106.05(e) (emphasis added):
Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4. The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184, 187, 209 USPQ at 7, 8. In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014). In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85.
Unlike Diehr, the additional elements in the claims of the instant application do not recite additional steps that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The processor, interface, and catheter are recited at a high level of generality, and are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of electroanatomical mapping, as explained in further detail below.
Step 2B: The ordered combination supplies an inventive concept
Applicant argues:
Even if the Office were to move to step two, the ordered combination of elements
provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The combination includes
deriving acquisition limits from histograms of specific electrophysiology parameters,
automatically tightening those limits when the console detects a change in arrhythmia
type during the ablation, enforcing spatial coverage by discarding isolated points, and
generating a new map from only those signals that satisfy the tightened limits and the
retuned parameters. That sequence modifies data admission and map generation in a
way that is neither generic nor conventional. The record cited for obviousness involves
different approaches such as morphology template matching, generalized acceptance
checks, or offline analyses, which underscores that the claimed pipeline is not routine.
Under Berkheimer, whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional is a
factual inquiry that requires evidentiary support. The Office has provided no evidence that
EA mapping consoles conventionally used histogram-derived limits that are automatically
tightened in response to arrhythmia changes, coupled with spatial coverage enforcement,
to control intraprocedural data admission and map generation. Absent such proof, step
two cannot be sustained.
(Remarks, page 17)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps Applicant listed above are mental processes, which are abstract ideas, as explained in further detail in the rejection below. Applicant is reminded that abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). See Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir 2016). Here, the limitations “deriving acquisition limits from histograms of specific electrophysiology parameters, automatically tightening those limits when the console detects a change in arrhythmia type during the ablation, enforcing spatial coverage by discarding isolated points, and generating a new map from only those signals that satisfy the tightened limits and the retuned parameters” are abstract ideas and not additional elements, and therefore do not provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement).
According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), in the cited Berkheimer case, “the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes”. The additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 23, are merely generically recited computer elements used as tools for executing the abstract ideas or insignificant extra-solution activity, as explained in further detail in the rejection below.
The dependent claims further confirm eligibility
Applicant argues
Claims 24 through 29 recite concrete implementations that remove any doubt.
They specify sliding-window cardiac-cycle-length histograms with mode shift detection,
stepwise percentile tightening toward target bounds, joint LAT and CL selection regions,
geodesic spacing on a cardiac surface model, variance-triggered retuning, and
concurrent visualization that distinguishes admitted points. These limitations show that
The Applicant claim specific techniques that reconfigure the device's data admission and
visualization behavior rather than seeking to monopolize the concept of analyzing cardiac
signals.
(Remarks, pages 17-18)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The features recited in claims 24-29 are also mental processes, which are abstract ideas. Applying rules to determine which data points are included in the map is a mental process. Visualization is a post-solution activity of displaying an output. Therefore, these claims do not recite any additional elements that provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 / § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09 Oct 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn. The rejections of claims 2-5, 9, 11-14, 20, 22, and 24-29 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are also withdrawn, because they are dependent on claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “subsequent to the first plurality” on page 5, line 20 should read “subsequent to the first plurality of data points”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 10, and 23 recite “tightening the limit to form a tightened limit”. “Tighten” in this limitation will be interpreted as “narrowed”, per paragraph [0029] of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites “wherein identifying the change in the type of arrhythmia comprises computing a first cardiac-cycle-length (CL) histogram over a first sliding time window and a second CL histogram over a subsequent sliding time window and declaring the change when an absolute difference between the modes of the histograms exceeds a threshold.” This additional step is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, claim 24 is directed to new matter.
Claim 25 recites “wherein deriving the limit from the histogram comprises computing lower and upper percentile bounds of the values and tightening the limit by stepwise increasing the lower percentile and decreasing the upper percentile toward target percentiles.” This additional step is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, claim 25 is directed to new matter.
Claim 26 recites “wherein constructing the histogram comprises constructing a two-dimensional joint histogram of Local Activation Time (LAT) and cardiac cycle length and selecting the subset using bounds that define a convex region within the joint histogram.” This additional step is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, claim 26 is directed to new matter.
Claim 27 recites “wherein in enforcing uniform spatial coverage comprises computing geodesic distances on a cardiac surface model and discarding a data point when another accepted data point lies within a minimum geodesic spacing r.” This additional step is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, claim 27 is directed to new matter.
Claim 28 recites “wherein automatically tightening the limit is triggered responsive to a variance of the cardiac cycle length over a sliding N-beat window exceeding a variance threshold.” This additional step is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, claim 28 is directed to new matter.
Claim 29 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising concurrently displaying the initial electroanatomical map and the improved electroanatomical map and visually distinguishing data points admitted by the one or more new data-collection parameters from earlier data points.” This additional step is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, claim 29 is directed to new matter.
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 1-5, 9-14, 20, and 22-29 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the data points" on page 3, line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to whether “the data points” refers to the first plurality of data points, the second plurality of data points, a new set of data points, or both the first and second pluralities of data points. For the purposes of examination, “the data points” will be omitted.
The term “improved” in claim 1 (page 2, line 1; page 3, line 10) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how the EA map is improved (assuming the improved EA map is being compared to the initial EA map) or to what extent the improved EA map is improved.
Claim 1 recites “enforcing spatial coverage by discarding isolated data points” (page 3, line 9). It is unclear as to which set of data points this action is applied to, what “enforcing spatial coverage” entails, and how “isolated data points” are determined.
Claims 2-5, 9, 20, and 24-29 are also rejected because they are dependent on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the data points" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to whether “the data points” refers to the first plurality of data points, the second plurality of data points, a new set of data points, or both the first and second pluralities of data points. For the purposes of examination, “the data points” will be omitted.
The term “improved” in claim 10 (line 29) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how the EA map is improved (assuming the improved EA map is being compared to the initial EA map) or to what extent the improved EA map is improved.
Claim 10 recites “enforce spatial coverage by discarding isolated data points” (page 6, line 11). It is unclear as to which set of data points this action is applied to, what “enforcing spatial coverage” entails, and how “isolated data points” are determined.
Claims 11-14 and 22 are also rejected because they are dependent on claim 10.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the data points" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to whether “the data points” refers to the first plurality of data points, the second plurality of data points, a new set of data points, or both the first and second pluralities of data points. For the purposes of examination, “the data points” will be omitted.
The term “improved” in claim 23 (line 21) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how the EA map is improved (assuming the improved EA map is being compared to the initial EA map) or to what extent the improved EA map is improved.
Claim 23 recites “enforcing spatial coverage by discarding isolated data points” (page 9, line 23). It is unclear as to which set of data points this action is applied to, what “enforcing spatial coverage” entails, and how “isolated data points” are determined.
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 1-5, 9-14, 20, and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Determination as to whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility is a stepwise process (MPEP 2016).
Step 1: Does the claim fall within a statutory category of invention?
Claims 1-5, 9, 20, and 24-29 recite a method (process), claims 10-14 and 22 recite an apparatus (machine), and claim 23 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture), which are within the four statutory categories. Therefore, claims 1-5, 9-14, 20, and 22-29 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-5, 9-14, 20, and 22-29 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is directed to a method for improving accuracy of an electroanatomical (EA) map generated during a cardiac ablation procedure performed on a patient, the method comprising: receiving a user input identifying a type of arrhythmia associated with a heart of the patient;
determining one or more initial data-collection parameters based on the type of the arrhythmia;
receiving a first plurality of data points from electrodes of a catheter positioned within the heart of the patient during the cardiac ablation procedure; displaying, during the cardiac ablation procedure, an initial EA map of the heart generated from a subset of the first plurality of data points selected using the one or more initial data collection parameters; receiving a second plurality of data points from the electrodes of the catheter during the cardiac ablation procedure, wherein the second plurality of data points is received subsequent to the first plurality of data points; identifying, using the one or more initial data-collection parameters, a change in the type of arrhythmia during the cardiac ablation procedure; determining one or more new data-collection parameters for the data points based on the type of the arrhythmia and the change; constructing, by a processor, a histogram of values of at least one data-collection parameter selected from Local Activation Time (LAT), cardiac cycle length (CL) catheter position, contact force, a bipolar potential, and, a unipolar potential for the data points;
deriving, from the histogram, a limit for the at least one data-collection parameter; responsive to the change identified, automatically tightening the limit to for a tightened limit; enforcing spatial coverage by discarding isolated data points; and displaying, during the cardiac ablation procedure, an improved EA map of the heart generated from a subset of the second plurality of data points that satisfy the tightened limit and the one or more new data-collection parameters, while excluding data points that fail the tightened limit.
Claim 10 recites an apparatus comprising an interface and processor configured to carry out the same operations described in claim 1. Claim 23 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the same operations described in claim 1.
The limitations of receiving user input, determining data collection parameters, constructing a histogram and deriving limits from the histogram, discarding data points, and displaying an EA map, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, are merely mental processes, because these steps are akin to having a doctor or other human actor performing these operations with pen and paper. For example, “displaying an EA map” encompasses nothing more than a human actor writing down data values by hand, then performing calculations on paper or evaluating the data mentally, then constructing an EA map with pen and paper, then presenting the map on paper. The limitation “constructing a histogram” encompasses nothing more than a human actor evaluating collected data and drawing a histogram on paper. “Deriving the limit from the histogram” encompasses nothing more than a human actor evaluating the resulting histogram and drawing a conclusion about what the limit should be.
The limitation of “receiving user input comprising a type of arrhythmia to be diagnosed” encompasses nothing more than a human actor collecting these pieces of information by hand.
The limitation “generating an EA map using a subset of a plurality of data points” encompasses nothing more than a human actor mentally evaluating whether each data point complies with the established data collection parameters, and constructing an EA map with pen and paper.
Therefore, claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea.
Claims 2-5, 9, 20, and 24-29 depend on claim 1, and claims 11-14 and 22 depend on claim 10. These dependent claims only recite additional features of the adjusting the data collection parameters described in claims 1 and 10, which may also be performed by a human actor mentally and using a pen and paper. For example, claims 2 and 11 recite “wherein the one or more initial data-collection parameters are further determined based on a confidence level that is adjusted in response to acquisition of additional data points”, which encompasses nothing more than a human actor writing down additional data points by hand, evaluating those data points, and mentally adjusting the confidence level in response.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 9-14, 20, and 22-29 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional element “a processor”. Claim 10 recites the additional elements “an interface” and “a processor”. Claim 22 recites “a processor of a surgical console”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. most generic computers would be known to have these components). Pages 9-11 of the specification describe the processor and interface at a high level of generality. These generic processor and interface limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 10, and 23 recite “receiving a first plurality of data points from electrodes of a catheter”. This step amounts to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering. It is noted that these steps are performed prior to the analysis/determination steps, and therefore are considered pre-solution activity. Therefore, the claimed generic electrodes and catheter elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 23 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. As described above, dependent claims 2-5, 9-14, 20, 22, and 24-29 only recite other limitations of adjusting data collection parameters, which may be done mentally by a human actor and/or with a pen and paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above with respect to the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2), the additional elements of using computer components to perform the process steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer elements. The structural elements recited in claim 1 are “computer-implemented” and “a processor”. The structural elements recited in claim 10 are “an interface” and “a processor”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. most generic computers would be known to have these components). Pages 9-11 of the specification describe the processor and interface at a high level of generality, and only provides well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2), the additional element of electrodes of a catheter to collect data amounts to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering. It is noted that these steps are performed prior to the analysis/determination steps, and therefore are considered pre-solution activity. This pre-solution activity of data gathering using a catheter is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of ECG and sensing technology. For example, see Shenasa (Cardiac Mapping. 3rd ed. Oxford; Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), which describes known methods of catheter mapping (Chapter 2: Construction of Endocardial Maps, pages 13-26).
Therefore, claims 1-5, 9-14, 20, and 22-29 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims Free of the Art
Claims 1, 10, and 23 are free of the art, but are not allowable due to the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112. Claims 2-5, 9-14, 20, 22, and 24-29 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 23, and therefore are also free of the art.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10, and 23 as made in the Amendment filed 09 Oct 2025 overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections made in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action mailed 14 Jul 2025.
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments that the previously cited prior art references teach the features recited in claims 1, 10, and 23 (Remarks, pages 18-23). Specifically, none of the prior art references teach identifying a change in the type of arrhythmia using the one or more initial data-collection parameters; deriving a limit for the at least one data-collection parameter; or automatically tightening the limit to form a tightened limit in response to the change identified.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stewart (US 20180296108 A1) presents histograms to the user so that the user can select regions of interest for ablation
El Haddad (attached) uses histograms to evaluate the accuracy of 3 methods for determining the origin of activation based on local activation times
Laughner (US 20150366476 A1) generates histograms for display based on activation times
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796