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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Court deemed a self-referential table for a computer database to have improved the underlying computer capabilities to provide "faster searching" and "more effective storage" of data, and "more flexibility in configuring the database." Similarly, Applicant's claims require generation of a data structure which improves the underlying computer capabilities…"The invention aims to exploit another way of determining the presence of noise, in particular by directly interpreting the signals on a detection channel of a probe. Indeed, on the basis of the proven principle that the heart of a human being cannot contract several times in an excessively short time interval, it is possible to observe on the detection channel of an electrode that a signal cannot be physiological; by comparing the time intervals separating several cardiac cycles. Therefore, the appearance of a non-physiological signal on the detection channel may be attributed to noise, and consequently, to a high probability that an electrode is defective….Another advantage is to reduce the number of alerts emitted by defibrillators and "pacemakers" in response to the detection of false positives of ventricular arrhythmias." (Applicant's published application, [0007]-[0008]).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and states that although the instant invention may determine that an electrode is defective or reduce a number of alerts emitted, there is still nothing in the claims which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Specifically, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation, “said item of identification information making it possible to discriminate a detection signal having a physiological cause from a detection signal having for cause a malfunction of electronic hardware” is interpreted as a mental process, for instance a person analyzing the identification information and determining if the detection signal is physiological or if it’s non-physiological, for instance a malfunction of electronic hardware.
Examiner asserts that although a determination is made, there is still nothing in the claims that integrates the mental process into a practical application.
Applicant argues, "In one example, the first interval i comprises the time interval separating the first detection signal SD from another prior signal, for example the second detection signal SD-1. It should be understood by 'prior' that the second detection signal SD-1 was detected by the electrode before the first detection signal SD. For example, the two signals SD and SD-1 are detected successively… Applicant's independent claims consider the evaluation and comparison of two successive time intervals (= two successive RR intervals), which is not taught or suggested by Gunderson. The two intervals required by Applicant's claims are not separate from each other, as they would be in the case of evaluating the RR intervals of two different NSTs - see Gunderson, [0065].”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gunderson discloses
a first detection signal ([0030]: cardiac electrical signal associated with an NST) comprising a signal portion corresponding to an electrical pattern over a first time interval ([0061]: a second NST detected from a later cardiac electrical signal than an NST detected from an earlier cardiac electrical signal is interpreted as a first time interval) and
a second time interval associated with a portion of a second detection signal prior to the first detection signal ([0061]: an NST detected from an earlier cardiac electrical signal than the cardiac electrical signal from the first detection signal is interpreted a second detection signal, which would have a second time interval),
wherein the second detection signal and the first detection signal are detected successively ([0080]: analysis of a plurality of NSTs is made, wherein the NSTs are consecutive i.e. the second time interval may be directly followed by the first time interval; [0062]: NSTs detected between consecutive cardiac cycles).
Additionally, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation, “wherein the second detection signal and the first detection signal are detected successively” is interpreted as either the second detection signal or the first detection signal is detected immediately after the another.
Therefore, the second time interval of Gunderson is interpreted as an earlier NST of a set of consecutive NSTs, which would read on the above recited limitations.
Applicant argues, “Applicant's claims do not require a calculation of an average or of ranges, as is required by Gunderson - see Gunderson, [0077] [0079]. In fact, a core aspect of Applicant's inventive technology is to evaluate prominent differences in the lengths between successive RR interval lengths, because Applicant discovered this to be a reliable indicator for detecting lead failure conditions. As set forth in the present application: "The method is based on time intervals separating several detected signals, such as time intervals between several successive signals, and advantageously makes it possible to accurately detect the appearance of noise on a detection channel." (Applicant's published application, [0008]).”
Examiner respectfully states that although Applicant’s claims do not require a calculation of an average or of ranges, the claim does not prevent the recited first time intervals and second time interval from comprising an average NST R-R interval duration. Furthermore, as stated above, Gunderson discloses analyzing a plurality of NSTs that are consecutive with one another [0080] and detected between consecutive cardiac cycles [0062].
Applicant argues, “the PTO appears to suggest that paragraph [0061] of Gunderson teaches evaluating differences in the lengths between successive RR interval lengths. Applicant submits that this is a mischaracterization of Gunderson. Gunderson, at [0061], describes that a processor 80 detects whether a lead related condition exists by analyzing cardiac electrical signals, detecting NSTs, calculating one or more metrics, and evaluating the calculations. The results are communicated to programmer 24 or other device to determine whether a lead related condition exists. There is no evaluation of the characteristics of two consecutive (i.e., successive) RR intervals, and Gunderson does not disclose or suggest any motivation for doing so.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Gunderson teaches that analysis may be done using a plurality of consecutive NSTs.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 are directed a computer implemented method, a system, and a non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions for assigning an item of identification information to a detection signal, respectively. Thus, they are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11, and 12 recite the following claim limitations which are directed to abstract ideas, specifically mental processes and mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)):
In re claim 1:
“assigning an item of identification information to the first detection signal” (mental process – person can assign an item of identification information to a signal)
said item of identification information being determined as a function of the result of the comparisons performed by the first comparison algorithm (mathematical function and relationships – Applicant’s specification [0233-0234]: ….calculator K is configured to implement an algorithm…the calculator K is configured to implement one or more functions... In an example, the assignment function implemented by the calculator K comprises the assignment of the item of identification information…).
In re claim 11, see above.
In re claim 12, see above.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that involve mathematical functions and relationships.
Therefore, the claim limitations fall within the 'mental processes' and ‘mathematical concepts’ groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims 1, 11 and 12 recite the following additional elements:
In re claim 1,
acquiring, by a probe, a first detection signal in response to receiving a cardiac electrical current,
said first detection signal comprising a signal portion corresponding to an electrical pattern over a first time interval,
said first time interval being defined between two events defined from at least one electrical pattern;
applying a first comparison algorithm comprising:
comparing the first time interval with a first threshold;
comparing a second time interval associated with a portion of a second detection signal prior to the first detection signal with a second threshold;
wherein the second detection signal and the first detection signal are detected successively;
said item of identification information making it possible to discriminate a detection signal having a physiological cause from a detection signal having for cause a malfunction of electronic hardware.
In re claim 11, see above and the following limitations:
an electrical device comprising at least one probe
a calculator
a display for generating a graphical marker overlaid on an electrogram comprising the first detection signal in order to temporally locate the item of identification information of the first detection signal
a memory for recording data;
a communication interface for exchanging data with equipment in a remote data network.
In re claim 12, see above and the following limitations:
a non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions…
…a computer
The following limitations:
acquiring, by a probe, a first detection signal in response to receiving a cardiac electrical current,
said first detection signal comprising a signal portion corresponding to an electrical pattern over a first time interval,
said first time interval being defined between two events defined from at least one electrical pattern;
applying a first comparison algorithm comprising:
comparing the first time interval with a first threshold;
comparing a second time interval associated with a portion of a second detection signal prior to the first detection signal with a second threshold;
wherein the second detection signal and the first detection signal are detected successively;
said item of identification information making it possible to discriminate a detection signal having a physiological cause from a detection signal having for cause a malfunction of electronic hardware,
an electrical device comprising at least one probe,
are pre-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), because they’re used to obtain additional information used to discriminate a detection signal having a physiological cause from a detection signal having a malfunction of electronic hardware.
Additionally, regarding the limitations:
said item of identification information making it possible to discriminate a detection signal having a physiological cause from a detection signal having for cause a malfunction of electronic hardware,
a display for generating a graphical marker overlaid on an electrogram comprising the first detection signal in order to temporally locate the item of identification information of the first detection signal, and
a communication interface for exchanging data with equipment in a remote data network
Examiner asserts that these limitations are directed to additional elements, specifically insignificant post solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The above recited limitations merely process information and then output the results of the above identified abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited “display” is neither particular enough to meaningfully limit the recited exception nor does it have more than a nominal relationship to the exception. In other words, the breadth of the recited “display” is such that it substantially encompasses all applications of the recited exception (such as moving information).
There is nothing in the claims which show how displaying the above recited limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or a technological solution to a technological problem.
Regarding the limitations, “applying a first comparison algorithm comprising:
comparing the first time interval with a first threshold;
comparing a second time interval associated with a portion of a second detection signal prior to the first detection signal with a second threshold”,
Examiner asserts that the above recited limitations amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983).
Additionally, the above recited claims’ recitation of a calculator, a memory, a communication interface, a non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions, and a computer are merely reciting the computer components at a high-level of generality. In other words, the computer components are being used as a tool to carry out the system’s functions (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity, and generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and generic computer components.
The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, none of the claims 1-12 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gunderson (US 2011/0098766).
In re claim 1, Gunderson discloses a computer implemented method [0012, 0042-0043] for assigning an item of identification information to a detection signal ([0008]): detecting lead related condition associated with a non-sustained tachyarrhythmia (NST)) comprising:
acquiring, by a probe (fig. 2: any one of electrodes: 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 62, 64, and 66; [0033-0034]), a first detection signal ([0030]: cardiac electrical signal associated with an NST) in response to receiving a cardiac electrical current [0030],
said first detection signal comprising a signal portion corresponding to an electrical pattern over a first time interval ([0061]: a second NST detected from a later cardiac electrical signal than an NST detected from an earlier cardiac electrical signal is interpreted as a first time interval),
said first time interval being defined between two events defined from at least one electrical pattern ([0008]: each NST comprises intervals i.e. events during the NST; [0070]: NST R-R intervals would be between two events);
applying a first comparison algorithm (fig. 8: flow diagram; [0076-0079]: comparison is made based on detected metrics to detect lead related condition; [0080]: cardiac electrical signals are examined for a plurality of NSTs for a period of time to detect lead related condition) comprising:
comparing the first time interval with a first threshold ([0065]: each NST is compared with a metric threshold);
comparing *a second time interval associated with a portion of a second detection signal prior to the first detection signal ([0061]: an NST detected from an earlier cardiac electrical signal than the cardiac electrical signal from the first detection signal is interpreted a second detection signal, which would have a second time interval) with a second threshold
([0065]: each NST is compared with a metric threshold and can include multiple metrics which would have multiple thresholds [0070]; [0079]: comparison can be made when multiple metrics are met; [0086]: combination between various examples may be made);
wherein the second detection signal and the first detection signal are detected successively ([0080]: analysis of a plurality of NSTs is made, wherein the NSTs are consecutive i.e. the second time interval may be directly followed by the first time interval; [0062]: NSTs detected between consecutive cardiac cycles);
assigning an item of identification information to the first detection signal ([0079-0080]: each NST is analyzed against a metric or a set of metrics to detect a lead related condition),
said item of identification information being determined as a function of a result of the comparisons performed by the first comparison algorithm [0079-0080] and
said item of identification information making it possible to discriminate a detection signal having a physiological cause from a detection signal having for cause a malfunction of electronic hardware ([0008]: NST is differentiated between an NST or a lead related condition; [0006]: lead related conditions may be structural issues related with electrodes, leads, or conductors).
Regarding the limitations “a second time interval associated with a portion of a second detection signal prior to the first detection signal”, Examiner asserts that under broadest reasonable interpretation, a second time interval can be interpreted as a cardiac electrical signal associated with a portion of a second detection signal that occurs prior to another later cardiac electrical signal that is part of a first time interval associated with a portion of a first detection signal.
In re claim 2, Gunderson discloses
wherein the first comparison algorithm comprises: comparing a third time interval associated with a portion of a third detection signal ([0061]: third NST is interpreted as being detected before the NST of the second detection signal) with a third threshold ([0079-0080]: each NST is compared with a metric threshold),
said third detection signal being prior to the second detection signal (see in re claim 1 above, where similarly, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the third detection signal can be interpreted as an earlier cardiac electrical signal than the cardiac signal associated with the second detection signal; [0061, 0079-0080]).
In re claim 3, Gunderson discloses comprising: implementing a second comparison algorithm ([0079-0080]: comparison may be made between various metrics) comprising:
comparing the first time interval with a fourth threshold ([0079-0080]: any NFT may be compared with various metrics; [0070]: metric includes seven parameters which each include its own respective threshold);
comparing the second time interval with a fifth threshold [0079-0080, 0070];
comparing the third time interval with a sixth threshold [0079-0080, 0070].
In re claim 4, Gunderson discloses comprising implementing, by the first comparison algorithm or the second comparison algorithm, the comparison of a seventh threshold (see in re claim 3, where there are second metrics and therefore second threshold) with a fourth time interval associated with a portion of a fourth detection signal prior to the third detection signal
(see in re claim 1 above, where similarly, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the fourth detection signal can be interpreted as an earlier cardiac electrical signal than the cardiac signal associated with the third detection signal; [0079-0080]: each NST is compared with metric(s); [0061]).
In re claim 5, Gunderson discloses wherein the item of identification information is assigned to the first detection signal according to the result of the comparisons of
at least one of the first and second comparison algorithms (see in re claim 1 above, where the identification information is assigned based on the result of the comparisons of the first comparison algorithm) or
a combination of the first and second comparison algorithms.
In re claim 6, Gunderson discloses wherein one or more thresholds among the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh threshold [0070] are defined by:
-a predefined threshold value [0070] or;
- a median value or an average of several values together or;
- a mathematical function defined relative to one or more time intervals; or
- a mathematical function independent of values of the acquired intervals or;
- a combination of several mathematical functions.
In re claim 7, Gunderson discloses wherein the item of identification information assigned to the first detection signal comprises either:
an item of physiological information characterizing an item of heart rate data;
an item of anomaly information characterizing an item of non-physiological signal data ([0006]: lead related conditions may be structural issues and therefore are associated with non-physiological signal data).
In re claim 9, Gunderson discloses comprising:
generating a notification or alert (256; [0077]) when the item of identification information assigned to the first detection signal comprises the item of anomaly information (254; [0077]);
saving said alert/notification in a memory space ([0060]: memory 82 may store and retrieve stored data associated with the cardiac electrical signal; [0065]: memory 82 stores data associated with NSTs; [0088]: instructions stored to perform functions such as sending alerts),
emitting said alert/notification generated to equipment of a remote data network ([0077]: results may be sent to telemetry module 88 which may send an alert action to programmer 24; [0081]: telemetry module 88 of IMD 16 communicates with programmer 24 wirelessly; fig. 1: 24).
In re claim 12, Gunderson discloses a non-transitory storage medium [0088, 0042] comprising instructions [0088].
Regarding the limitation, “which, when the instructions are run by a computer, cause the latter to implement the following steps:
a first comparison algorithm comprising:
comparing a first time interval, over which an electrical pattern of a portion of a first detection signal acquired by means of a probe extends, with a first threshold ;
comparing a second time interval associated with a portion of a second detection signal prior to the first detection signal with a second threshold;
wherein the second detection signal and the first detection signal are detected successively;
assigning an item of identification information to the first detection signal said item of identification information being determined as a function of a result of the comparisons performed by the comparison algorithm and said item of identification information making it possible to discriminate a detection signal having a physiological cause from a detection signal having for cause a malfunction of electronic hardware”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / 103 as being unpatentable over Gunderson (US 2011/0098766).
In re claim 8, Gunderson discloses the item of identification information assigned to the first detection signal comprises an item of anomaly information characteristic of a probe breakage ([0006]: short/open circuits and other structural modifications that worsen sensing integrity are interpreted as probe breakage): either
when
the first time interval is less than the first threshold (fig. 8: block 244 when average value is less than a predetermined threshold; [0077]),
the second time interval is greater than the second threshold (fig. 8: block 252 when range value is greater than a predetermined threshold; [0077]) and
**the third time interval is greater than the third threshold ([0077-0079]: other metrics may additionally or alternatively be used, such as one that would require the third interval to be greater than the third threshold to detect the lead related condition; [0080]: plurality of NSTs i.e. time intervals may need to be met for a lead related condition to be detected) or
when
the first time interval is below the first threshold and
the second time interval is above the second threshold,
the third time interval is above the third threshold and
the fourth time interval is above the seventh threshold.
**Regarding the limitation, “the third time interval is greater than the third threshold”, Gunderson discloses a flowchart (fig. 8) comprising three values being compared with respective thresholds (fig. 8: 244, 248, and 252). Gunderson further teaches that a plurality of NSTs (i.e. time intervals) may be analyzed for the determination of a lead related condition [0079-0080], and that seven metrics may be selected from for the comparison [0070]. Additionally, Gunderson teaches that although fig. 8 shows three criteria related to three metrics, other examples may consist of a different number of metrics and criteria [0078].
A third threshold could have been selected to be compared with the third time interval that would satisfy the above recited limitation. However, in the instance that this is not explicitly disclosed by Gunderson, claim 8 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as follows:
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the computer implemented method taught by Gunderson, to provide wherein anomaly information characteristic of a probe breakage includes the third time interval being greater than the third threshold, as taught by Gunderson, because multiple criteria and metrics may have been selected, for instance, another metric that satisfy the third time interval being greater than the third threshold for the detection of probe breakage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunderson (US 2011/0098766) in view of Spors et al. (US 2016/0292373).
In re claim 10, Gunderson fails to disclose comprising:
generating an electrogram image comprising a graphical representation of at least one detection signal among the first, second, third, and fourth detection signals and of at least one time interval;
acquiring, recording and transmitting the electrogram image acquired to at least one piece of equipment in a data network.
Spors teaches displaying information related to a health event [0002] and teaches
generating an electrogram image (fig. 6C: 674; [0063]) comprising a graphical representation of at least one detection signal (fig. 6C: 674) among multiple detection signals ([0050]: graph may show different time periods rather than just one shown, therefore, multiple signals must exist) and of at least one time interval [0050];
acquiring, recording and transmitting the electrogram image acquired ([0063]: mobile device receives heart activity from connected sensor device; [0063]: provider receives the ECG graph via care provider environment or event manager; fig. 1: care provider 105 receives data from mobile device 135 via network 145; [0026]) to at least one piece of equipment (fig. 1: 105) in a data network ([0026]: mobile device includes monitoring application that permits communication with a care provider environment via network 145; [0029, 0063]); and
a display (fig. 6C: 660; [0050, 0061]) for generating a graphical marker ([0050]: selector bar) overlaid on an electrogram ([0050]: graph may include the selector bar so a user can scroll the graph to see different time periods) comprising the detection signal (fig. 6C: 674) in order to temporally locate the item of identification information of the first detection signal (fig. 6C: 674 may be viewed to detect when the electrode has been detached and the selector bar can be sed to switch between different time periods [0050]).
Spors further teaches that the ECG graph can be used to determine a mobile device stops receiving heart activity from a sensor [0063], such as when normal heart activity turns is followed by a flat line [0063], which indicates a failure in the sensor device [0063], rather than a cardiac event such as a heart attack [0063].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the computer implemented method taught by Gunderson, to provide generating an electrogram image comprising a graphical representation of at least one detection signal among the first, second, third, and fourth detection signals and of at least one time interval and acquiring, recording and transmitting the electrogram image acquired to at least one piece of equipment in a data network, as taught by Spors, because the display of the ECG graph can be used to differentiate between a failure in the sensor device and a cardiac event such as a heart attack.
In re claim 11, a system [0010-0011] for generating an item of identification information of a cardiac detection signal [0008, 0010-0011] comprising:
an electrical device (fig. 1: 16) comprising at least one probe (fig. 2: any one of electrodes: 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 62, 64, and 66; [0033-0034]) for acquiring a first detection signal in response to receiving a cardiac electrical current (see in re claim 1 above), said detection signal comprising a signal portion corresponding to an electrical pattern over a first time interval (see in re claim 1 above);
a calculator ([0070]: calculation module calculates one or more metrics and makes a comparison with a threshold to determine presence of a lead related condition; [0067]: calculation module 128 is part of processor 80; [0042])….;
…a memory (fig. 4: 82; [0042]) for recording data [0068];
a communication interface (88; [0081]) for exchanging data with equipment (fig. 1: 24) in a remote data network [0077, 0081]).
Regarding the limitations,
“a calculator configured to implement:
a comparison algorithm comprising:
i. comparing the first time interval with a first threshold;
ii. comparing a second time interval associated with a portion of a second detection signal prior to the first detection signal with a second threshold
wherein the second detection signal and the first detection signal are detected successively;
a function for assigning an item of identification information to the first detection signal said item of identification information being determined according to a result of the comparisons performed by the comparison algorithm, said item of identification information making it possible to discriminate a detection signal having a physiological cause from a detection signal having for cause a malfunction of electronic hardware”,
see in re claim 1 above.
Regarding the limitations, “a display for generating a graphical marker overlaid on an electrogram comprising the first detection signal in order to temporally locate the item of identification information of the first detection signal”, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 10 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 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, 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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights