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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,071,489. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention’s claims are merely broader in scope than the patented claims. Once the applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention (see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
All features of claim 1 map directly to patented claim 1 (or equivalent patented apparatus claim 11), with the claimed step of eliminating annotations based on a subset of extracted features mapping to the narrower patented step involving the elimination of annotations that have a confidence level below a threshold, and the claimed step of eliminating annotations based on a pair reduction analysis, mapping to the narrower patented step of merging two annotations that arise from a single occurrence as a single annotation. Like comments apply to apparatus claim 10 and method claim 19.
The newly amended material represents intended use and/or inherent results and thus fails to saliently distinguish over the ‘489 invention.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,071,489 in view of Houben et al. (Pub. No. 2015/0208938).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, while the ‘489 invention does not reference the use of normalized zero mean Gaussian functions for decreasing noise in the unipolar and bipolar derivative signals, Houben discloses a substantially similar system wherein it is taught that derivative functions of ECG complexes enhance high frequency noise (par. 0084). In order to filter the noise, normalized zero mean Gaussian functions are used. Given the known issue of high frequency noise enhancement associated with the derivative of an ECG signal and the common goal in the art to reduce noise, those of ordinary skill would have considered the application of such filters to derivatives of either bipolar and/or unipolar derivative signals to be a matter of obvious signal processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment was not considered sufficient to overcome the obviousness-type double patenting rejection as discussed above.
Regarding the rejection of claims under §101, while the examiner is not convinced of eligibility under §101 by the applicant’s amendment which, for the most part, merely adds desired results and intended use statements, upon further reflection, the examiner considers the receipt of a bipolar ECG signal comprising two unipolar signals in combination with the receipt of one of the unipolar ECG signals, to represent significant extra-solution activity. The applicant discloses that bipolar signals are inherently immune to far field interference, but present ambiguities in LAT measurements. While unipolar signals on the other hand, clearly mark the onset of activity, but are sensitive to far field activations (see pars. 0003, 0004, 0060 of the corresponding ‘155 PG Publication). By combining the properties of the two types of signals, more accurate signal annotations may be generated (par. 0061). As such, the requirement for receiving both bipolar and unipolar signals as recited is more than nominally or tangentially related to the invention and thus integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY SCHAETZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-4954. The examiner can normally be reached 2nd Monday of the biweek and W-F.
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 E. 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.
/KENNEDY SCHAETZLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
KJS
September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights