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. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the mental concept of receiving EGM data to determine a selected part of a plurality of electrode locations that have been selectively accepted to output data for displaying the EGMs from the selected part . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional (e.g. processor, memory, computer readable medium with instructions for claim 20, etc.) fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more to the exception. The additional limitations only store and retrieve data/information in memory and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP 2106.05 . The claims are directed to an abstract idea and/or the end result of the system/method, the essence of the whole, is a patent-ineligible concept. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to a general computer performing a calculation. T he claim s are directed to an abstract idea , i.e. implementing the idea of receiving EGM data to determine a selected part of a plurality of electrode locations that have been selectively accepted to output data for displaying the EGMs from the selected part , such as may be done by a mental process, critical thinking, and/or paper and pencil, or done by a mathematical equation, with additional generic computer elements , or additional structure (e.g. processor, memory, computer readable storage medium with instructions, etc.) recited at a high level of generality that perform generic functions routinely used in the art, and do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation or in the relevant art . Thus, the recited generic computer components perform no more than their basic computer functions. These additional elements are well ‐ understood, routine and conventional limitations (see cited document(s)) that amount to mere instructions or elements to implement the abstract idea. In addition, the end result of the system/method, the essence of the whole, is a patent-ineligible concept. See the recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, including Alice Corp., Myriad, and Mayo. In addition, the current claims are similar to other recent court decisions dealing with analyzing, comparing, and/or displaying data, such as Electric Power Group, Digitech, Grams, and Classen. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims (e.g. claim 12 having a memory and processor, and corresponding method claim 1, and computer readable storage medium of claim 20 ) is a system having a memory and processor, wherein the processor is programmed with executable instructions to perform the calculations/mental process/critical thinking. The claims do not impose any limits on how the EGM/electrical cardiac signals are received by the processor, and thus this step covers any and all possible ways in which this can be done, for instance by typing the information into the system, or by the system obtaining the information from another device. The claim also does not impose any limits on how the computations are accomplished, and thus it can be performed in any way known to those of ordinary skill in the art. The calculations are simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind or through critical thinking. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Nor does the recitation of a processor in the claim negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process. The memory and processor are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Although the processor or claim limitations may fall under several exceptions (e.g., a mathematical concept-type abstract idea or a mental process-type abstract idea), there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(I). Thus, it is sufficient for the examiner to identify that the limitations align with at least one judicial exception, and to conduct further analysis based on that identification. The limitations of the claims are carried out by the processor and the memory. No element has been set forth to sense the EGM signal, and the only additional element is the memory, where the processor performs the necessary software tasks so that the result of the abstract mental process is just data/ causing a display to display the results, such as the electrograms that are selected . The memory limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes (e.g., the mental computation of receiving EGM data to determine a selected part of a plurality of electrode locations that have been selectively accepted to output data for displaying the EGMs from the selected part , etc.), using the computer components as a tool. While this type of automation may improve the life of a practitioner/physician (by minimizing or eliminating the need for mentally computing metrics), there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 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. In claim 1, lines 3 and 4, “distally disposed on a catheter inserted into...” is vague as it cannot be determined if there is a step to inserting a catheter into the heart or not. Method steps require active voice, such as “inserting a catheter into one or more chambers…” to positively recite/claim a method step. If the method step is not being positively recited, it is unclear if any prior art reception of electrical signals will meet the claimed limitations since the claim is only setting forth “obtaining…electrical signals”. Similarly, lines 5-7 are vague for trying to limit the electrodes and their locations. The claim has only set forth obtaining electrical signals. It is suggested to use active voice for inserting the catheter and receiving electrical signals from the electrodes from a plurality of locations. In line 10, “electrode” and “a number of locations” are vague as line s 6- 7 also use the term “electrodes” and “locations” and it is unclear if the electrodes and locations in line 10 are the same as the electrodes and locations in line s 6- 7 or are different. If they are the same, then line 10 should use “each of the electrodes” and “the locations”. If they are different, then a modifier such as “additional ” electrode/ locations should be used. The last paragraph is vague as it is unclear what is meant by “causing display”. Does this just mean an output is sent and that is it? It is suggested to state “displaying…” Also, “electrograms” is vague as no element has been set forth to obtain electrograms. Line 2 has set forth obtaining electrical signals, but does not call them electrograms. Similarly, claim s 12 and 20 have these problems listed above. In claim 3, line 1, “an electrical signal” is vague as the electrical signal has also been recited in claim 1. It is suggested to use “the” electrical signal. In lines 2-3, “is accepted or rejected” is vague as it is unclear if this is referencing the “selectively accepting…” from claim 1, or is a completely new step. In addition, lines 4-7 are vague and should use active voice to positively recite that the determination of these elements in order to accept or reject them. Similarly, claim 14 has these problems and the structure should set forth an element to perform the functions listed in the claim. In claim 4, “displayed electrogram” is vague as claim 1 also uses this term in the last paragraph and it is unclear if the two are the same or not. Similarly, in line 5, “accepted electrogram” is vague as it is unclear if this is referencing the accepting of the electrical signals or not of claim 1. Similarly, claim 15 has these problems. In addition, it is unclear how a processor is “displaying” a map. It is suggested to state the system “further comprises a display”. Similarly, in claim 5, the last paragraph, “electrodes” and “obtained signals” are vague. Similarly, claim 16 has these problems and it is suggested to state the system further comprises a display. Similarly, in claim 6, “a displayed electrogram”, “electrode” are vague. In the last paragraph, “obtained by other electrodes positioned” is vague for being in passive voice and it is unclear if the method is positively reciting/claiming a step to obtaining additional electrograms. In the last line, “a same spline” is vague as no structure for the catheter or electrodes have been set forth to have or be on a spline. Similarly, claim 17 has these problems. In claim 8, “is set” is vague and in the passive voice. Similarly, claim 19 has this problem and it is unclear how this is a structural limitation. In claim 12, lines 5-9, “disposed…inserted, wherein each electrode …locations” is vague and sounds more like a method step than a structural limitation. The claim has not positively recited the electrodes or catheter and it is unclear how the structural claim is trying to further limit these elements. The claim has only positively set forth “obtaining a plurality of electrical signals”. Claim Objections Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 17. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ghosh et al show the use of obtaining EGM signals and accepting/rejecting/removing poor quality signals to display the accepted signals, but does not disclose the steps/functions of associating each accepted electrode with a number of the location and determining a selected part of the plurality of electrodes for which the number of locations is highest, in combination with the other steps/elements in the claim(s). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT George Robert Evanisko whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4945 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8AM-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Benjamin Klein can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5213 . 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. /George R Evanisko/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792 10/17/25