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 .
Priority
Claims 1-42 are deemed to have an effective filing date of January 29, 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the GUI feature is a button on the GUI” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). The Examiner notes that a GUI is designated by 111 in Fig. 1 and is illustrated as a box with “24 mm” within the box. It is unclear how a button could be “on the GUI” as recited in claim 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, 22, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities: The independent claims use the abbreviation “EP” without first spelling out the word that is being abbreviated.
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 32 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. 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).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 8, 12-31, and 33-42 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.
Claims 3, 15, 24, and 36 recite the limitation "the GUI feature" in lines 1-2 and “the GUI” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as claim 1, 12, 22, or 33 (from which the identified claims depend) does not mention a GUI or a GUI feature. The Examiner notes that claims 2, 14, 23, or 35 introduces a graphical user interface (GUI) feature, but not a GUI. It is unclear how a button is located on the GUI, let alone provides the claimed function. Thus, the scope of claims 3, 15, 24, and 36 is indefinite.
Claims 4, 16, 25, and 37 recite the limitation "the GUI feature" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1, 12, 22, or 33 (from which the identified claims depend) does not mention a GUI feature. The Examiner notes that claim 2, 14, 23, or 35 introduces a graphical user interface (GUI) feature. Thus, the scope of claims 4, 16, 25, and 37 is indefinite.
With respect to claim 12, the recitation of “the EP parameter values” (line 3) is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is being referred back by the recitation. The Examiner assumes that “EP” is short for electrophysiological, but the claim should spell out the term prior to using the abbreviation.
With respect to claim 22, the recitation of “the EP parameter values” (line 6) is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is being referred back by the recitation. The Examiner assumes that “EP” is short for electrophysiological, but the claim should spell out the term prior to using the abbreviation.
With respect to claim 33, the recitation of “the EP parameter values” (line 3) is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is being referred back by the recitation. The Examiner assumes that “EP” is short for electrophysiological, but the claim should spell out the term prior to using the abbreviation.
Claims 8, 13-14, 17-21, 23, 26-31, 34-35, and 38-42 are rejected because they depend from an indefinite claim.
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 1-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 and 12-21 claim a system (apparatus/machine) and claims 22-32 and 33-42 claim a method (process). Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1-42 recite receiving/presenting a set of data points representing a full range of EP parameters, generating a partial-data EP map, selecting one or more outlier points, and regenerating the EP map without the selected outlier points. Dependent claims 5-8, 17-19, 26-29, 34 and 38-40 further modify the above-identified steps. The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitations in the mind except for the recitation of “processor”. That is, other than reciting that a processor is performing these tasks, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. 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. In this case, aside from the recitation of the “processor”, the claims encompass a user observing the clinical data (received/presented data points of EP parameter data), focusing on a portion of the data points, selecting outlier points, and generating a map without the outlier points.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims recite “a data set representing EP parameter values”, “a display device”, “an input device”, and “a processor” to perform abstract idea steps. The EP data/ parameter values is directed to insignificant extrasolution activity since this is presolution data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The display device is directed to insignificant extrasolution activity since it amounts to data outputting. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The specification/claims 7, 18, 28, and 39 discloses that “the input device” allows the user to remove the outlier parts”. The processor comprises a general-purpose computer (see page 12, lines 15-22). As such, these components read on a computer implemented system 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.
Dependent claims 2-4, 14-16, 23-25, and 35-37 further recite providing a graphical interface using the display device and the input device to let the user define components of the EP parameters. Similarly, claims 9-11, 20-21, 30-32, and 40-41 defines the type of input device that can allow the user to perform the abstract idea. Thus, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they 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 on page 12 of the originally-filed application 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.
Thus, the above-identified claims are directed to the judicial exception and ineligible since there is no inventive concept in the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-14, 16, 20-23, 25-26, 30-35, 37, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0119399 to Relan et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Relan”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0390353 to Cohen et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Cohen”).
Regarding claims 1, 10-11 (and 32), and 22 and 31, Relan discloses a system (e.g., abstract: electroanatomical mapping system) and a method (e.g. title), comprising: a display device (e.g., paragraph [0060]: System 8 can generate an LAT map and output the same on display 23; Fig. 1, display 23); an input device (e.g., paragraphs [0012] and [0067]: the electroanatomical mapping system can accept a user input selecting a subset of EP data points); and a processor (e.g., paragraph [0051]: computer 20 may comprise one or more processors 28; and [0067]: flowchart 400 represents steps that can be carried out by processor 28; Fig. 1, 28) configured to: receive a set of data points representing a full range of an EP parameter (e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0012]: electroanatomical mapping system can define a spatial kernel for each EP data point of the plurality of EP data points and compute a spatial gradient for each defined spatial kernel; [0062]: system 8 receives a local activation time (LAT) data set (which can also be referred to as an “LAT map)”; Fig. 4, 402); generate a partial-data EP map using only data points belonging to a selected subset of the plurality of EP data points (e.g., paragraph [0012]: Alternatively, the electroanatomical mapping system can accept user input selecting a subset of the plurality of the EP data points); display the partial-data EP map to a user on the display device (e.g., paragraphs [0060]: Visualizations of LAT maps can be output on display 23; [0061]: steps of flowchart 400 can be visualized via module 58; Fig. 1, display 23); receive from the user, via the input device, a selection on the partial-data EP map of one or more outlier data points belonging to the selected subset of EP data points (e.g., paragraphs [0013]: electroanatomical mapping system detects the spatial outlier EP data point by comparing the spatial gradient to a spatial gradient threshold input by a user; [0073]: system 8 detects outliers in block 410 – thus, a selection of one or more outliers are received based on user input); regenerate the EP map using the set of data points without the selected outlier data points (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: visualization module; [0075]-[0076]: system 8 corrects outliers in block 412 – thus, the detected/selected outliers are corrected/removed; Fig. 4, 412); and display the regenerated EP map to the user (e.g., paragraph [0081]]: system 8 outputs a graphical representation of corrected LAT map in block 416; Fig. 4, 414). Relan differs from the claimed invention in that it does not expressly disclose that the subset of data points belongs to one or more predefined ranges. However, in a related art: visually differentiating primary and secondary activations on EP maps, Cohen teaches that bipolar intracardiac electrogram signals for an EP map can be limited to signals with activations as high as a specific percentage of the primary activation (for example 90% of the primary activation (e.g., paragraph [0040] of Cohen). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the EP map could include only data points belonging to a predefined percentile range in view of the teachings of Cohen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system of Relan so that a partial-data EP map is visualized/generated responsive to one or more pre-defined percentile ranges, and outliers are detected/selected within the one or more percentile ranges in view of the teachings of Cohen that limiting the EP map to a specific predefined range(s) was known in the art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Referring to claims 12, 21, 33, and 42, Relan discloses a system (e.g., abstract: electroanatomical mapping system), comprising: a display device (e.g., paragraph [0060]: System 8 can generate an LAT map and output the same on display 23; Fig. 1, display 23); an input device (e.g., paragraphs [0012] and [0067]: the electroanatomical mapping system can accept a user input selecting a subset of EP data points); and a processor (e.g., paragraph [0051]: computer 20 may comprise one or more processors 28; and [0067]: flowchart 400 represents steps that can be carried out by processor 28; Fig. 1, 28) configured to: present, on the display device, an EP map having the full range of the EP parameter values (e.g., abstract, paragraphs [0012]: electroanatomical mapping system can define a spatial kernel for each EP data point of the plurality of EP data points and compute a spatial gradient for each defined spatial kernel; [0060]-[0062]: system 8 receives a local activation time (LAT) data set (which can also be referred to as an “LAT map) – where the steps of flowchart 400 can be visualized via module 58 on display 23; Fig. 4, 402); generate on the EP map data points belonging to a selected subset of the plurality of EP data points (e.g., paragraph [0012]: Alternatively [Instead of all EP data points], the electroanatomical mapping system can accept user input selecting a subset of the plurality of the EP data points); receive from the user, via the input device, a selection on the EP map of one or more outlier data points belonging to the subset of EP data points (e.g., paragraphs [0013]: electroanatomical mapping system detects the spatial outlier EP data point by comparing the spatial gradient to a spatial gradient threshold input by a user; [0073]: system 8 detects outliers in block 410 – thus, a selection of one or more outliers are received based on user input); regenerate the EP map using the set of data points without the selected outlier data points (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: visualization module; [0075]-[0076]: system 8 corrects outliers in block 412 – thus, the detected/selected outliers are corrected/removed; Fig. 4, 412); and display the regenerated EP map to the user (e.g., paragraph [0081]: system 8 outputs a graphical representation of corrected LAT map in block 416; Fig. 4, 414). Relan differs from the claimed invention in that it does not expressly disclose that the EP map is highlighted in response to one or more predefined ranges and that the selected outlier data points belong to the one or more predefined ranges. However, in a related art: visually differentiating primary and secondary activations on EP maps, Cohen teaches that bipolar intracardiac electrogram signals for an EP map can include primary and secondary activations that can be identified by different types of visual indicators including blinking or color-coding (highlighting) (e.g., abstract and paragraph [0018] of Cohen) and that bipolar intracardiac electrogram signals for an EP map can be limited to signals with activations as high as a specific percentage of the primary activation (for example 90% of the primary activation (e.g., paragraph [0040] of Cohen). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the EP map could highlight data points belonging to a predefined percentile range in view of the teachings of Cohen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system of Relan so that the EP map is highlighted to distinguish one or more pre-defined percentile ranges, and outliers are detected/selected within the one or more percentile ranges of the highlighted EP map in view of the teachings of Cohen that analyzing portions of the EP map, such as a portion having specific predefined range(s) was known in the art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claims 2, 14, 23, and 35, Relan in view of Cohen teaches the system according to claims 1 and 12 and the method according to claims 14 and 35, wherein the processor is further configured to provide, using the display device and the input device, a graphical user interface (GUI) feature that is capable of letting a user define the one or more percentile ranges of an Electrophysiological (EP) parameter (e.g., paragraph [0030] of Cohen: results of the operations and visualizations performed by processor 40 are presented to physician/user 28 on a display 48, which presents a graphic user interface). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a display with a graphical user interface in view of the teachings of Cohen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the display device of Relan in view of Cohen to have a graphical user interface because such was a known engineering expedient in the electrophysiological map art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claims 4, 16, 25, and 35, Relan in view of Cohen teaches the system according to claims 1 and 12, and the method according to claims 22 and 33, wherein the GUI feature is further configured to highlight differently on the partial-data EP map data points belonging to different percentile ranges (e.g., paragraphs [0003] and [0006] of Cohen: the graphic representations of the electrical potentials comprise bars having different colors selected in response to different electrical potentials). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a graphical user interface that highlights differently in view of the teachings of Cohen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the display device of Relan in view of Cohen to have a graphical user interface that is configured to highlight differently on EP map because such was a known engineering expedient in the electrophysiological map art as taught by Cohen, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result
With respect to claims 5, 13, 26, and 34, Relan in view of Cohen teaches the system according to claims 1 and 12, and the method according to claims 22 and 33, wherein the processor is further configured to apply one or more automatic outlier detection algorithms to highlight the outlier data points (e.g., paragraph [0019] of Relan: the electroanatomical mapping system can correct the identified outlier by applying at least one LAT version dispersion algorithm and a peak frequency dispersion algorithm to the EP data points as modified by Cohen to have different colors for different potential values). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of applying one or more automatic outlier detection algorithms to highlight the outlier data points in view of the teachings of Relan and Cohen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system and method of Relan in view of Cohen to apply one or more automatic outlier detection algorithms to highlight the outlier data points in view of the teachings of Relan and Cohen that such was a known protocol in the electrophysiological map art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claims 9, 20, 30, and 41, Relan in view of Cohen teaches the system according to claims 1 and 12, and the method of claims 22 and 33,wherein the input device comprises one of a touchscreen and a computer mouse (e.g., paragraph [0026] of Cohen: processor 40 is mounted in a console which has operating controls, typically including a pointing device, such a mouse or trackball used by the physician to interact with the processor). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of the input device comprising a mouse in view of the teachings of Cohen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system and method of Relan in view of Cohen so that the input device comprises a mouse in view of the teachings of Cohen that such was a well-known engineering expedient in the electrophysical mapping art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claims 3, 6-7, 15, 17-18, 24, 27-28 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relan in view of Cohen as applied to claims 1, 12, 22, and 33, respectively above, and further in view of the publication by Biosense Webster entitled “Carto® 3 System Instructions for Use” dated March 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “Carto”).
With respect to claims 3, 15, 24, and 36, Relan in view of Cohen teaches the system according to claims 1 and 14 and the method according to claims 23 and 35, but does not expressly teach that the GUI feature is a button on the GUI that by pressing the button the processor generates the partial-data EP map or highlights the EP map. However, Carto, in a related art: instructions for use of a catheter-based cardiac electrophysiological system, teaches that a button appears on the acquisition panel when recording of the electrodes (EA) is enabled and that the Acquisition Panel has several buttons including a button to start continuous mapping and FAM acquisition (e.g., pages 71 and 75 of Carto) and highlights outliers (e.g., page 190-191: Map Consistency Display). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a graphical user interface feature being a button that enables the processor to start the EP mapping and highlighting/color coding the EP map. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system and method of Relan in view of Cohen so that the GUI feature is a button on the GUI that generates the EP map or highlights the EP map when pressed/clicked in view of the teachings of Carto that such was a well-known engineering expedient in the electrophysical mapping art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claims 6, 17, 27, and 38, Relan in view of Cohen teaches the system according to claims 5 and 12 and the method according to claims 26 and 33, but does not expressly teach that the processor is further configured to rotate the map so that the physician can see the highlighted outlier data points. However, Carto, in a related art, teaches that a physician/user can rotate an image by pressing the scroll wheel and dragging over the image pane (e.g., page 126, lines 1-7 of Carto). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of the physician/user being able to rotate images displayed in the electrophysiological mapping system in view of the teachings of Carto. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system and method of Relan in view of Cohen so that the processor enables the rotation of the image/EP map in view of the teachings of Carto that such was a well-known engineering expedient in the electrophysical mapping art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claims 7, 18, 28, and 39, Relan in view of Cohen teaches the system according to claims 1 and 12 and the method of claims 22 and 33, but does not expressly teach that the input device is further configured to allow the user to remove the outlier data points selected. However, Carto, in a related art, teaches that LAT outliers can be immediately deleted by clicking Map Consistency (e.g., Pages 192-193 of Carto: outliers are immediately deleted or the outliers can be hidden/removed from the EP map). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of using a button of the input device to allow the user to remove/hide/delete the outlier data points selected in an electrophysiological mapping system in view of the teachings of Carto. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system and method of Relan in view of Cohen so that a user using an input device can remove, hide/delete outlier data points in an EP map in view of the teachings of Carto that such was a well-known engineering expedient in the electrophysical mapping art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claims 8, 19, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relan in view of Cohen as applied to claims 4, 12, and 33 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0095942 to Govari et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Govari”).
Relan in view of Cohen teaches the system according to claims 4 and 12, and the method of claim 33, but does not expressly teach that the processor is configured to automatically regenerate the EP map based on the set of data points after the selected outlier data points are removed from the set. However, Govari teaches, in a related art: real time removal of EP parameter outliers from visual map, where the processor computes and displays a continuous map of EP parameters by interpolating over the non-outlier EP parameters at given locations (e.g., paragraph [0050]: in map generation step 333, processor 41 generates an EP parameter map of the chamber of the heart with only non-outlier mapped locations after EP parameters are marked as outliers (step 218); Fig. 2, 218, 222). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of the processor being configured to automatically regenerate the EP map after the selected outlier data points are removed/hidden/deleted in view of the teachings of Govari. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system and method of Relan in view of Cohen so that the processor is configured to automatically regenerate the EP map after the selected outlier data points are removed from the set in view of the teachings of Govari that such was a well-known protocol in the electrophysical mapping art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relan in view of Cohen and Carto as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Govari.
Relan in view of Cohen and Carto teaches the method of claim 29, but does not expressly teach that the processor is configured to automatically regenerate the EP map based on the set of data points after the selected outlier data points are removed from the set. However, Govari teaches, in a related art: real time removal of EP parameter outliers from visual map, where the processor computes and displays a continuous map of EP parameters by interpolating over the non-outlier EP parameters at given locations (e.g., paragraph [0050]: in map generation step 333, processor 41 generates an EP parameter map of the chamber of the heart with only non-outlier mapped locations after EP parameters are marked as outliers (step 218); Fig. 2, 218, 222). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of the processor being configured to automatically regenerate the EP map after the selected outlier data points are removed/hidden/deleted in view of the teachings of Govari. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system and method of Relan in view of Cohen and Carto so that the processor is configured to automatically regenerate the EP map after the selected outlier data points are removed from the set in view of the teachings of Govari that such was a well-known protocol in the electrophysical mapping art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0338783 to Palti et al. is directed to electrophysiological map coloration by considering outliers where the gist of the system and the independent claims is taught, but the document does not teach the user via an input device selecting outlier data points, regenerating the EP map and displaying the same. However, those features as considered obvious in view of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792