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 05/13/2026. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1-2, 7, 9, and 17-18 have been amended, claims 3-4, 11-12, 19, and 21 have been cancelled, and claims 22-26 have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, 20, and 22-26 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments obviate the rejection of record. The record of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 05/13/2026, regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8 that “In as much as a human mind is capable of determining a variation of data for a single electrode during a mapping procedure (which Applicant does not concede), Applicant agrees with the Office's position that performing this procedure with a large number of electrodes that receive electrophysiological signals over a heartbeat-based time window (put another way, the same mapping interval) outside the capability of the human mind. Therefore, Applicant submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is moot.” Applicant also asserts on page 9 that “The claimed combination of elements addresses the technical challenge that physicians cannot manually assess signal quality from large numbers of electrodes in real-time. The specification acknowledges that "requiring the physician to judge the quality of these results will further tax his/her time and attention during the mapping procedure, especially if a large number of electrodes is used." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0016].”
Examiner disagrees because the amendments to the claim to not accurately present what the instant specification has set forth, that being that a physician “is incapable of properly inspecting all the simultaneously generated signals within the available time.” ([0016]) The instant claims fail to recite the inspecting of all the signals simultaneously because the instant claims fail to define a timeframe of the analyzing of the signals. Under BRI, the instant claims can take as long as possible to analyze all of the EP signals for determining LATs for all the electrodes and determining variations for the LATs.
Applicant then argues on pages 8-9 that “Additionally, claims 1, 9, and 17 are not directed to an abstract idea because they are integrated into a practical application that addresses a specific technical problem in cardiac electrophysiology mapping. The specification explains that when small numbers of electrodes are used in electrophysiological mapping, the process generates accurate maps because "the physician can observe the acquired signals, and only accept 'good' signals (as judged by the physician) into the map," but this approach "has the drawback that the mapping takes a long time." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0015]. Conversely, "for catheters with large numbers of electrodes, the mapping time is reduced, but the accuracy is decreased, since the physician is incapable of properly inspecting all the simultaneously generated signals within the available time." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0016].
The "extract respective local-activation-times from the electrophysiological signals for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats; determine a variation of the respective local-activation-times" recited by claims 1, 9, and 17 is not merely a mental process, but rather an automated technical solution to this specific problem. The claims provide "one or more processors" that "superimpose on the map a visual indication of the extracted local-activation-times for which the local-activation-times extracted for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats comprise a variation within ± 10 milliseconds of each other". This approach "facilitates rapid automated decisions as to the points on the tissue where the acquired EP parameters are valid, without having to rely on a subjective and time-consuming assessment by the physician." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0018].”
Applicant is asserting the abstract idea itself as the improvement. However, the abstract idea cannot be an “additional element” that shows integration into a practical application. The order of calculations and the particular calculations claimed do not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims are currently structured as simply using a generic computer to implement the abstract idea (mental process), which is not enough to show a practical application.
Applicant then argues on pages 9 that “The claims are not merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components,
but rather improve the functioning of the electrophysiological mapping system itself. Amended
claims 1, 9, and 17 recite or analogously recite "superimpose on the map a visual indication of the
extracted local-activation-times at the respective locations for which the local-activation-times
extracted for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats comprise a variation within
± 10 milliseconds of each other". As described in the Specification, the processor "extracts the EP
parameters over several (for example 3-7) heartbeats, and keeps updating the 3D map for each
heartbeat" and "computes a measure of consistency for the EP parameter over these several
heartbeats, reflecting the variation of the extracted values over the heartbeats." As-Filed
Specification, paragraph [0020]. When "the variation exceeds this threshold at a given
measurement point on the tissue, the measured EP parameter at this point is rejected, and the
corresponding area on the 3D map is displayed in its neutral background color." As-Filed
Specification, paragraph [0021].
This automated consistency evaluation and selective display functionality transforms the mapping system from one that requires constant physician oversight to one that can automatically distinguish valid from invalid measurements, thereby enabling practical use of multi-electrode catheters for cardiac mapping.”
Examiner disagrees since the processing of data on a microcontroller unit is merely performing this process on a generic computer structure. The transmitting of signals is simply a generic computer function performed by a generic computer structure, wherein implementing the abstract idea with a generic computer is not enough to show integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The transmission of data to and from the sensor systems is merely data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant then asserts on page 10 that “The claims are directed to a specific application in medical diagnosis and treatment of
cardiac conditions, not to a generalized abstract concept. The specification describes that "LAT is
the time interval between a reference time determined, for example, from the body surface ECG
or intracardiac electrogram, and the time of the local depolarization event" and that "an abnormally
low range is diagnostic of scar tissue." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0019]. The automated
consistency evaluation enables physicians to obtain reliable diagnostic information from cardiac
mapping procedures.”
Examiner disagrees because the “multi-electrode catheter/probe” is claimed very generically and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. These are well-understood, routine and conventional structure in the diagnostic art since Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507) teaches multi-electrode catheters [generic data gathering structure] for obtaining EP signals ([0030]-[0033]). Applicant further admits in [0029] of the instant specification that the position/orientation system is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) by citing patents in which the positioning system is described.
Applicant lastly asserts on page 10 that “No such evidence has been provided for the features of cancelled claim 21.
Instead, the rejection instead rests on a conclusory assertion that is insufficient as a matter of law.
Moreover, the recited "local-activation-times extracted for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7
consecutive heartbeats comprise a variation within ± 10 milliseconds of each other" do not
constitute insignificant pre- or post-solution activity, but rather are integral to the claimed
technology and integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a
system that can automatically distinguish valid from invalid measurements, thereby enabling
practical use of multi-electrode catheters for cardiac mapping.” Examiner disagrees because a variation and heartbeats are extra-solution activity as they are data that is implemented in a generic processing device. Therefore, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to the claims obviate the rejection of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Botzer et al (US2018/0042505) (Hereinafter Botzer) in view of Honicker et al (US 20190365262)(Hereinafter Honicker).
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 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 22-24 has been amended to include the limitation, " the multiple electrodes comprise 20 or more electrodes ". The limitation does not have support in the instant specification nor in the parent application.
The specification provides support for a total of 120 electrodes ([0026]). However, the specification does not provide support for 1) the “20 electrode” as a species alone, and 2) “20 or more electrodes”, which provides no upper limit to the number of electrodes, thereby being infinite. Applicant has not indicated where the disclosure provides adequate written description support for the instant claim limitation, " the multiple electrodes comprise 20 or more electrodes”. Therefore, the new claim limitations introduce 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 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, 20, and 22-26 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 map" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “the 3D map” to remain consistent with line 11.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, it is unclear if the "each other" of line 15 is referring to the variation between the 3-7 heartbeats at a single location or variation between the "respective locations’" heartbeats. It is further unclear of the variation is done for the heartbeats or the LATs.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the local-activation-time" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes claim 1 recites the plural “local-activation-times” of line 8 claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the map" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “the 3D map” to remain consistent with line 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the local-activation-time" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes claim 9 recites the plural “local-activation-times” of line 8 claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the map" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “the 3D map” to remain consistent with line 11.
Claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-16, 18, 20, and 22-26 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1, 9, and 17.
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, 5-10, 13-18, 20, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites a step extract respective local-activation-times from the electrophysiological signals for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats; determine compute a variation of the respective local-activation-times, which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (ie. a storage device, a processing circuitry, implantable medical device), determining values, and determining variation do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are to receiving data, processing data, and determining variation, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject
matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1 – Statutory categories
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine) and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 9 is directed to a method and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 17 is directed to a tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a product), and
thus, meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Judicial exception (j.e.)
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the following step is an abstract idea:
“extract respective local-activation-times from the electrophysiological signals for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats; determine a variation of the respective local-activation-times”, which is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could analyze EP parameters/LATs extracted from acceptable signals, which can be determined by a physician, as admitted in [0015] of the instant specification. Further, determining variation for LATs is an observation and judgment made as a human can see the variation for the LAT.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – additional elements to integrate j.e. into a practical application
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a display screen”, “a memory”, and “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “electrodes” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “EP signals”, “LATs”, “3D map”, “variation”, “+/- 10 ms” “visual indication” and “3-7 heartbeats” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)];
- “position-tracking system” is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B – significantly more/inventive concept
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “a display screen”, “a memory”, and “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “electrodes” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “EP signals”, “LATs”, “3D map”, “variation”, “+/- 10 ms” “visual indication” and “3-7 heartbeats” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)];
- “position-tracking system” is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (ie. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor, and memory, along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The “multi-electrode catheter/probe” is claimed very generically and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. These are well-understood, routine and conventional structure in the diagnostic art since Koyrakh et al. (US 20150057507) teaches multi-electrode catheters [generic data gathering structure] for obtaining EP signals ([0030]-[0033]). Applicant further admits in [0029] of the instant specification that the position/orientation system is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) by citing patents in which the positioning system is described.
Dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-16, 18, 20 and 22-26 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 1 and 10. The dependent claim limitations are directed to extra-solution activity (claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-16, 18, and 20), and data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (claims 22-26) which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In summary, claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, 20, and 22-26 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botzer et al (US2018/0042505) (Hereinafter Botzer) in view of Honicker et al (US 20190365262)(Hereinafter Honicker).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Botzer discloses a medical apparatus /related method, comprising: a control 432 [0186-0187]; a display screen (450) [0189, 0192 and fig.23]; a memory to storing instructions [0190]; a position-tracking system (magnetic tracking system) configured to acquire respective locations of multiple electrodes (411 [0185] “at least two electrodes”) on a probe (408) inserted into a heart of a patient [0184, 0191]; and one or more processors (20) [0187-0189] configured to: acquire respective electrophysiological signals received from the multiple electrodes (411) over a at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats [0181,0187,0050, fig.5,7] ([0181] “several beats (typically one or two previous beats) can be used.” Two beats before the current are 3 heartbeats.); and extract respective local activation time from the electrophysiological signals for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats [0060,0129,0160] ([0047] “The wavefront annotation algorithm provides automatic and reliable detection of annotation points that enable acquisition and annotation of numerous LAT points in a relatively short time.)”.
However, Botzer does not teach the determining a variation of LATs in which a visual indication of extracted LATs and superimpose on the map a visual indication of the extracted local-activation-times at the respective locations for which local-activation-times extracted for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats comprise a variation within ± 10 milliseconds of each other. Honicker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches cardiac activation time in which EP signals are measured for obtaining LATs at cardiac locations (Abstract), and further teaches determine a variation of the respective local-activation-times ([0051] “the initial activation rate renders the reference signal unsuitable. Rather, it is contemplated that as long as the difference between the instantaneous activation rate and the initial activation rate does not exceed a preset threshold (decision block 308), the deviation can be compensated for (block 310) when measuring LATs in block 304. Similar to the discussion of stability and synchronization above, the threshold can be expressed in either relative terms (e.g., a variation of about±5%) or absolute terms (e.g., a variation of about±20 ms), and may be user-defined.”);
output to the display screen a three-dimensional (3D) map of the heart ([0054] “a graphical representation of the LAT map can be output, for example, on a three dimensional cardiac model displayed on display 23.”); and
superimpose on the map a visual indication of the extracted local-activation-times at the respective locations for which local-activation-times extracted for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats comprise a variation within ± 10 milliseconds of each other ([0054] “a graphical representation of the LAT map can be output, for example, on a three dimensional cardiac model displayed on display 23.” [0051] “the initial activation rate renders the reference signal unsuitable. Rather, it is contemplated that as long as the difference between the instantaneous activation rate and the initial activation rate does not exceed a preset threshold (decision block 308), the deviation can be compensated for (block 310) when measuring LATs in block 304. Similar to the discussion of stability and synchronization above, the threshold can be expressed in either relative terms (e.g., a variation of about±5%) or absolute terms (e.g., a variation of about±20 ms), and may be user-defined.” Examiner notes that LAT values are mapped for when the variation is above and below the predetermined threshold. The variation of ± 10 milliseconds are within +/-20 ms.) to analyze the stability and synchronization of the LATs ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Botzer, with the determining a variation of LATs in which a visual indication of extracted LATs and superimpose on the map a visual indication of the extracted local-activation-times at the respective locations for which local-activation-times extracted for each heartbeat over the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats comprise a variation within ± 10 milliseconds of each other of Honicker, because such a modification would allow to analyze the stability and synchronization of the LATs.
However, Botzer in view of Honicker does not teach the specific variation of ± 10 milliseconds. Nevertheless, Honicker teaches that the variation can be adjusted by the user to select consistent data points ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a specific variation of ± 10 milliseconds, for the purpose of selecting consistent data points ([0051]), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, claims 1, 9, and 17 are obvious over Botzer and Honicker. Although Botzer teaches the discarding of annotation parameters from excluded criteria ([0105]), Botzer does not teach the variations above a predetermined threshold. Honicker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches cardiac activation time in which EP signals are measured for obtaining LATs at cardiac locations (Abstract), and further teaches wherein at least one of the one or more processors are further configured to: automatically discard the local activation times in the at least 3-7 consecutive heartbeats for which the variation is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0052]) to analyze the stability and synchronization of the LATs ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Botzer, with the determining a variation of LATs in which a visual indication of extracted LATs at their respective locations are mapped for variations less than a predetermined threshold of Honicker, because such a modification would allow to analyze the stability and synchronization of the LATs.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Botzer discloses the one or more processors further configured to determine a second variation comprising peak-to-peak variation of the local-activation-time at any given location [0105,0129].
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, Botzer discloses wherein the processor is further configured to extract an electrophysiological voltage [0106,0189].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Botzer discloses wherein the variation comprises a peak-
to-peak variation of the electrophysiological voltage at any given location [0105].
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botzer et al (US2018/0042505) (Hereinafter Botzer) in view of Honicker et al (US 20190365262)(Hereinafter Honicker) and Zeidan et al. (US 20170354339)(Hereinafter Zeidan).
Regarding claims 8, 16, Botzer in view of Honicker teaches the inventions of claims 1, 9, and 17. Botzer in view of Honicker do not teach wherein rendering the 3D map comprises rendering the 3D map in a background color, and superimposing the visual indication comprises superimposing other colors on the background color at the respective locations indicating respective values of the extracted local-activation-times. Zeidan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches intracardiac electrograms from a multi-electrode catheter (Abstract), and further teaches wherein rendering the 3D map comprises rendering the 3D map in a background color, and superimposing the visual indication comprises superimposing other colors on the background color at the respective locations indicating respective values of the extracted local-activation-times (Fig. 7 showing different coloring for different LATs at different locations.) to identify optimal locations of obtaining LAT ([0057]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Botzer in view of Honicker, with the rendering the 3D map comprises rendering the 3D map in a background color, and superimposing the visual indication comprises superimposing other colors on the background color at the respective locations indicating respective values of the extracted local-activation-times of Zeidan, because such a modification would allow to identify optimal locations of obtaining LAT.
Claim(s) 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botzer et al (US2018/0042505) (Hereinafter Botzer) in view of Honicker et al (US 20190365262)(Hereinafter Honicker) and Houbon et al. (US 20170281031)(Hereinafter Houbon).
Regarding claims 22-24, Botzer in view of Honicker teaches the inventions of claims 1, 9, and 17. Botzer in view of Honicker do not teach at least 20 electrodes. Houbon, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an EP mapping system for generating electrograms that collect LATs (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the multiple electrodes comprise 20 or more electrodes ([0087] “endocardial mapping catheter having 64 (8×8) electrodes”) to optimize the collection of LAT ([0088]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Botzer in view of Honicker, with the at least 20 electrodes of Houbon, because such a modification would allow to optimize the collection of LAT.
Regarding claims 25-26, Botzer in view of Honicker teaches the inventions of claims 1, 9, and 17. Botzer in view of Honicker do not teach at least 20 electrodes. Houbon, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an EP mapping system for generating electrograms that collect LATs (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the multiple electrodes comprise 120 or more electrodes ([0087] “endocardial mapping catheter having 64 (8×8) electrodes”) to optimize the collection of LAT ([0088]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Botzer in view of Honicker, with the at least 20 electrodes of Houbon, because such a modification would allow to optimize the collection of LAT.
Although Houbon teaches 64 electrodes on the catheter, Houbon does not teach 120 electrodes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have 120 electrodes, for the purpose of collecting more electrograms in a shorter period of time, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights