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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-5 & 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 13, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of species I, i.e. claims 2, 6-16 & 19-20 in the reply filed on August 13, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious search and/or examination burden exists since the embodiments are overlapping. This is not found persuasive because the species identified exhibit methodical differences between the claimed elements, i.e. the methods claimed to determine the plurality of values are not analogous to the claimed features of the simplex as defined by the second grouping species, i.e. there is no overlap in the claimed elements between the two species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-2, 6-16 & 19-20, specifically independent claim 1 and claim 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Please see the below ‘2 Prong Test’ analysis:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Claim 14 is directed a system, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the steps of:
“…providing a plurality of values…mapped data point of an electro-anatomical map…”
“…displaying…a simplex…”
“…displaying, via an interface, a visual depiction of a defined range on the simplex…”
“…acquiring, in real-time, the data point for inclusion in the electro-anatomical mapping…”
Claim 14 recites a processor configured to:
“…configure a catheter for mapping a data point in an electro-anatomical mapping…”
“…determine a plurality of values…mapped data point of an electro-anatomical map…”
“…display…a simplex…”
“…displaying, via an interface, a visual depiction of a defined range on the simplex…”
“…acquiring, in real-time, the data point for inclusion in the electro-anatomical mapping…”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It would be practical, but for the recitation “processor configured to” and “via an interface” to perform the steps in a human’s mind, or with pen and paper, to receive and/or train the method and/or system.
Under the broadest interpretation, claims 1 & 14 recite a series of steps that are practically performable in the human mind. A human could determine a plurality of values in a quality profile of mapped data points, and acquiring, in real-time, the data point for inclusion in the electro-anatomical mapping. Therefore, it would be practical to perform the steps in a human’s mind, or with a pen and paper, to utilize the claimed signals.
Claims 1 & 14, recite method steps comprising mental processes (i.e. determining, acquiring). Thus, since claims 1 and 1 recite limitations that fall within the mental processes of abstract ideas, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims 1 & 1 4 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1 & 14 recites the following additional elements:
…a catheter for mapping, which is directed to data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
A processor configured to…which is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
…an interface, which is directed to data output, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The above additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
*Note: None of the additional elements recited in claims 1 & 14 applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claims are silent to providing any treatment at all to a patient.
Step 2B:
When considered individually and in combination, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A, prong 2. Therefore, the claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
The examiner notes that dependent claims 6-12, 16 & 19 do not provide additional elements and/or claim limitations that would read over the above analysis and are also directed towards an abstract idea without significantly any more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 19, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph and the 35 USC 102, 103 claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive and have been withdrawn.
Note: The examiner notes that there is no pending prior art rejection of the present claims. The 35 U.S.C 101 rejections are still pending.
Applicant's arguments filed November 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following points in which the examiner provides a reason as to why the arguments are not persuasive:
The applicant argues that the present claims are not directed to an abstract idea and therefore are not excluded from patent eligibility under Step 2A, Prong 1, i.e. the claims are directed to a method for using a catheter for mapping an organ by optimizing electro-anatomical mapping data collection and data points, which utilizes and transforms medical device equipment to enable/implement organ mapping with increased efficiency and quality that are otherwise not currently available or performed by cardiac physicians and medical personnel.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation the examiner disagrees and further points out that the claims are directed towards the mental process grouping.
Specifically, claims 1 & 14 recite a series of steps that are practically performable in the human mind. A human could determine a plurality of values in a quality profile of mapped data points, and acquiring, in real-time, the data point for inclusion in the electro-anatomical mapping. Therefore, it would be practical to perform the steps in a human’s mind, or with a pen and paper, to utilize the claimed signals, i.e. claims 1 & 14, recite method steps comprising mental processes (i.e. determining, acquiring). Thus, since claims 1 and 14 recite limitations that fall within the mental processes of abstract ideas, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant’s arguments focuses on the alleged benefits within those of ordinary skill, which does not change the fact that the claim, as a whole, recites an abstract idea, and according to Step 2A, Prong 2, merely implementing the abstract idea with additional elements, as mentioned above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As a further note the examiner reiterates that none of the additional elements recited in claims 1 & 14 applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.. The claims are silent to providing any treatment at all to a patient.
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 NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796