CTNF 18/305,811 CTNF 70013 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 11-12-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search group II along with group I would not be a burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because in conducting the search the examiner has determined that there are enough common elements between the invention groups and that the groups share the common patentable features. The requirement is deemed improper and is therefore is WITHDRAWN. All claims are examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : Claims 1-16 and 23 recite a method of mapping cardiac tissue repolarization and therefore is a process. Claims 17-22 and 24 recite an electroanatomical mapping system for generating a cardiac tissue repolarization map and therefore is a product. Step 2A, Prong 1 : Claims 1, 17, 23, and 24 recite following limitations: “receive electrophysiological data from a plurality of electrodes carried by a multi-electrode catheter, the plurality of electrodes defining a plurality of cliques”; “identifying a depolarization direction”; “identifying an omnipolar electrogram oriented along the depolarization direction”; “ identifying a depolarization time in the omnipolar electrogram”; “defining a repolarization interval, occurring after the depolarization time, in the omnipolar electrogram”; “computing a vectorcardiogram repolarization loop over the repolarization interval”; and “identifying a repolarization time from the vectorcardiogram repolarization loop, thereby creating a cardiac tissue repolarization map” The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of “electroanatomical mapping system” in claims 1 and 23 and “electroanatomical mapping system comprising a repolarization mapping and visualization processor” in claims 17 and 24. For the limitation of “a plurality of electrodes carried by a multi-electrode catheter, the plurality of electrodes defining a plurality of cliques” in claims 1, 17, 23, and 24, all steps are being performed by the “electroanatomical mapping system” , and not the “plurality of electrodes carried by a multi-electrode catheter, the plurality of electrodes defining a plurality of cliques” . For “electroanatomical mapping system” , the specification discloses the following in [0055]: The computer 20 may comprise, for example, a conventional general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, a distributed computer, or any other type of computer. The computer 20 may comprise one or more processors 28, such as a single central processing unit (“CPU”), or a plurality of processing units, commonly referred to as a parallel processing environment, which may execute instructions to practice the various aspects described herein. Therefore, the limitation of “electroanatomical mapping system” would be nothing more than a generic computer. That is, other than reciting that “electroanatomical mapping system” (nothing more than a generic computer) is performing these tasks, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind or being considered as methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states that the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. For example, aside from the recitation of “electroanatomical mapping system” language, the claims encompass the medical professional computing omnipolar electrograms and vectorcardiograms to determine depolarization and repolarization times for each region. Step 2A Prong 2 : The claims recite “electroanatomical mapping system” to perform the abstract steps. The limitation of “electroanatomical mapping system” read on a computer implemented system and method and are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor, performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B : As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification in [0167] does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer ‐ implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim, as a whole, amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, a conclusion that the generic computer functions merely being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-22 further limit the abstract idea already indicated in independent claims 1 and 17 and they are ineligible for the same reasons provided for claims 1 and 17 above. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus they are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 1-24 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. Independent claims 1, 17, 23 and 24 each recite a catheter with a plurality of cliques and for each clique a series of steps which conclude with the identification of a repolarization time from a repolarization loop and thereby creating a repolarization map. This seems to conflict with Applicant’s specification in that a map is not created separately for each for each clique analysis as is claimed, (see Applicant’s fig. 4 400) but rather that a single map is created based upon the data from all of clique loops data once they are all analyzed (see elements 414 and 418 of Applicant’s figure 4). In addition, the limitation of “the plurality of electrodes defining a plurality of cliques” in claims 1, 17, 23, and 24 and all their dependent claims thereof seems indefinite. If there are more than one cliques and each clique is defined as “the plurality of electrodes”, it would mean that each of the clique would be identical since each clique is made of the same plurality of electrodes. Therefore, there would not be a plurality of cliques. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph and under 35 USC 101, set forth in this Office action. Claims 1-24 are considered allowable since they appear to be patent eligible as being limited to creating vectorcardiogram maps identifying a repolarization interval and a repolarization time which is a useful tool in cardiology for understanding the polarization and repolarization cycles of the heart. The prior art of record indicates that the use of multi-clique catheters for the mapping the heart such as Relan et al 2023/0119399; however, the prior does not indicate the use of such catheters to generate a repolarization loop and identify a repolarization time. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK W. BOCKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. 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. /MARK W. BOCKELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/305,811 Page 2 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/305,811 Page 3 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/305,811 Page 4 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/305,811 Page 5 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/305,811 Page 6 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/305,811 Page 7 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/305,811 Page 8 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/305,811 Page 9 Art Unit: 3792