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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/22/2025, 4/15/2026 and 4/24/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the first paragraph, the continuity data should be updated to indicate that US App. No. 17/571,496 is now US Patent No. 12,220,199.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,220,199. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the current claims. Specifically:
Patented claim 1 anticipates current claims 16-18, 21-22, 29-32 and 35-36.
Patented claim 2 anticipates current claims 19-20.
Patented claim 3 anticipates current claims 33-34.
Patented claim 4 anticipates current claims 37-38.
Patented claim 5 anticipates current claims 23-24.
Patented claim 6 anticipates current claims 25-28.
Patented claim 7 anticipates current claim 39.
Patented claim 8 anticipates current claim 40.
Patented claim 9 anticipates current claims 41-42, 45-46, 49, 52-54 and 58.
Patented claim 10 anticipates current claim 59.
Patented claim 11 anticipates current claims 43-44.
Patented claim 12 anticipates current claims 47-48.
Patented claim 13 anticipates current claims 50-51.
Patented claim 14 anticipates current claims 55-56.
Patented claim 15 anticipates current claim 57.
Claims 16 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 16 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,239. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the current claims.
Claims 16 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20, 21 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,389,102. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the current claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-59 would be allowable if Terminal Disclaimers were filed to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claims 16 and 41, using a modified multi-frame Horn-Schunck algorithm to process a plurality of electrogram surfaces or data grids through time to generate a map corresponding at least partially to a spatial map configured to reveal on a monitor or display to a user the location of the source of, or rotational phenomenon, associated with at least one cardiac rhythm disorder, when combined with the rest of the limitations in each claim, has not been taught or suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric D Bertram whose telephone number is (571)272-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-6pm Central Time.
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.
/Eric D. Bertram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights