Difference between revisions of "Bilski 35 USC § 101 Rejections Patent Application List"

From DolceraWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎'''Bilski Pharma Method Treating Sample''')
(→‎'''Bilski Diagnostic Methods Sample''')
Line 536: Line 536:
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
== '''Bilski Diagnostic Methods Sample''' ==
+
==Bilski Diagnostic Methods Sample==

Revision as of 03:43, 19 March 2009

Bilski Medtech Sample

S.No Publication No. Rejection type 101 Rejection 102 Rejection 103 Rejection 112 Rejection
1 US20060190302A1 103 rejection N/A N/A Claims 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaco et al., U.S. Patent 5,822,544 in view of Lichtman et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,819,107. N/A
2 US20060189976A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 US20060195058A1 102 rejection N/A Claims 1-26 and 41-54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Goldberger et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 200610079809). N/A N/A
4 US20060195159A1 102 rejection N/A Claims 1-3, 5, 8-1 3, 16-1 8, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Bradley (US 200301 39781). N/A N/A
5 US20060194724A1 103 and 112 rejection N/A N/A The rejection of claims 1-1 6, 44-47, 49, 50-62, 64-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafik (Andrologia. 1996. 28: 151 -6) or Heiduschka et al. (Exp. Neurol. 2001. 171 : 1-10) in view of Burnett (World J. Urol, 2003.20: 337-342), US 6208894 (issued Mar 27,2001) and US 6464687 (issued Oct 15, 2002) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to the claims and cancellation of claims 2, 7, 46, 52-70. The rejection of claims 2, 7,46, 52-70 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph,
because the specification does not enable the invention commensurate in scope with
the claims is moot because the claims are canceled.
6 US20060195144A1 102 rejection N/A Claims 1-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
DiLorenzo (US 6,366,813). 		N/A N/A
7 US20060200025A1 102 and 103 rejection N/A Claims 1-21, 29-42, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Foley et al (US Pat: 6,167,145). Claims 22-28 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foley et al (US Pat: 6,167,145) stand alone. N/A
8 US20060200034A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
9 US20060200205A1 102 and 103 rejection N/A Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-14, 16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cohen. Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boveja, previously cited, in view of Tanagho, herein Boveja in view of Tanagho N/A
10 US20060200011A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
11 US20060200036A1 112, 102 and 103 rejection N/A Claims 1-2,25-26,35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by "Detection of Atrial Persistent Rhythm Based on P-wave Recognition and RR Interval Variability" (VR Zurro, AL Stelle, and J Nadal, Computers in Cardiology 1995, as cited by Applicant and hereinafter referred to as "Zurro"). Claims 3-5,27, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Bock. Claims 24 and 34-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
12 US20060200071A1 102 rejection N/A Claims 1-1 3, 15-23, and 25-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Gore et al. (US 2004101 47034). N/A
13 US20060203963A1 102 and 103 rejection N/A Claims I , 2,4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Becker et al. (US Patent 6,904,161 BI). Claims 3, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Becker et al (US Patent 6,904,161 B1) in view of Lee (US Patent 4,838,75). N/A
14 US20060206169A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 US20060212097A1 102 rejection N/A Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Vock et al (2003/0163287 A1) N/A N/A
16 US20060216333A1 103 rejection N/A N/A Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20-22, 27, 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hedenstrom et al. (200210058674) and Mitra et al. (W0120021102377) in further view of Gordon et al. (20040014779). N/A
17 US20060276709A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
18 US20060276856A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
19 US20060281990A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
20 US20060281980A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
21 US20070027459A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
22 US20070027487A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
23 US20070032734A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
24 US20070032852A1 102 rejection N/A Claims 1 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as being anticipated by White et al USPN 5,782,904. N/A N/A
25 US20070038051A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
26 US20070034215A1 101 rejection Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for nonstatutory subject matter. The invention is ineligible because it has not been limited to a substantial practical application and a tangible result. Instructions to transmit data does not result in a practical application and lacks a tangible result. The result has to be a practical application and a tangible result. N/A N/A N/A
27 US20070060797A1 102 rejection N/A Claims 1 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Rogers et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,957,107. N/A N/A
28 US20070066904A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
29 US20070067190A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
30 US20070073180A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
31 US20070073124A1 102 and 103 rejection N/A Claims 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Addison et al. (WO 2041075746). Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addison in view of Prochazka et al article (Decomposition And Reconstruction Methods In Biomedical Image De-Noising, Proc. 1 6 th ~ienniaIln t. EURASIP Conference BlOSlGNAL 2002, pp. 350-352, 2002) N/A
32 US20070073352A1 102 and 103 rejection N/A Claims 1-3,6-10,25-29 & 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Deno et al. (WO 031020364 A2). Claims 4-5 & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deno et
al. (WO 031020364) in view of Frank et al. (US 5,265,615 A). 		N/A
33 US20070078306A1 112 and 102 rejection N/A Claims 1-1 2 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Saracen et al (7,362,848) N/A Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
34 US20070078353A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
35 US20070078450A1 112, 102 and 103 rejection N/A Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Deckelbaum (U.S. Pat. No. 4,785,806). Claims 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deckelbaum (U.S. Pat. No. 4,785,806) in view of Alfano et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5,293,872). Claims 3, 7, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
36 US20070078320A1 102 and 103 rejection N/A Claims 1, 2, 8-12, 14-21, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Funderburk (US Patent 2004101 331 64). Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Funderburk in view of Polcha (US Patent Application 2005101 97554). N/A
37 US20070078678A1 102 and 103 rejection N/A Claims 1-4, 6-7, 15-1 7, 19-22, 24-25, 34-36, 38, 40 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Z-Kat (WO 20041070580) as cited by applicant. Claims 5, 8-1 2, 18, 23, 26-31, 37, 39 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Z-Kat as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Krause et al. (US Patent No. 6,711,432). N/A
38 US20070078335A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
39 US20070083152A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
40 US20070088195A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A

Bilski Pharma Method Treating Sample

S.No Patent/Publication No. Rejection type 101 Rejection 102 Rejection 103 Rejection 112 rejection
1 US20050209181A1 112 rejection N/A N/A N/A Amended claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
2 US20050209300A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 US20050208054A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 US20050220771A1 102, 103 and 112 rejections N/A Claims 130-133 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US 20040259966 (’966). Claims 130-135 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 5885234 (’234) in view of US 20040249327 (’327). Claims 130-135 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
5 US20050249805A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 US20050249704A1 103 and 112 rejections N/A N/A 1. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16- 17, and 19-28 remain rejected under 35 USC 5 103(a) as being obvious in view of the combination of Nakatani et a1 ("Nakatani"), Vincenti et a1 ("Vincenti") , Hayosh et a1 ("Hayosh"), Paty et a1 ("Paty") and Jacobs et a1 ("Jacobs"), as set forth on pages 4-7 of the office action mailed on 1 1/30/2007. 2. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 19 remain rejected, and amendedlnew claims 20-26 are also rejected, under 35 USC § 103(a) as being obvious in view of the combination of the "Study of Zenepax" document, Khoury et a1 ("Khoury"), Paty et a1 ("Paty"), and Jacobs et a1 ("Jacobs"), as set forth on pages 7-9 of the office action mailed on 811 112006. 1. Claims 9 and 17 remain rejected, and amended claims 12 and 20, as well as new claim 21, are also rejected under 35 USC 5 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to claimed trademarks, as set forth on page 6 of the prior office action mailed on 811 112006. The Applicants’ response received on 1211812006 does not address this issue; and it is noted that trademarks appear in these claims.
2. Claims 6, 9, 12, and 14 recite the limitation "the interleukin-2 receptor antagonist". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
7 US20050249823A1 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims I, 5-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hermelin et al. (US Patent No. 6258846). Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hermelin et al. in view of Kiliaan et al. (US PGPUB No. 200210040058). N/A
8 US20050250688A1 103 rejection N/A N/A Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toledo-
Pereyra (Klin Wochenschr, 1991, 69: 1099-1 104) in view of Benedict et al. (of record on
the 9/20/04 IDS) and in view of the product use sheet from I ,5-dansyl-Glu-Gly-Arg
chloromethyl ketone from Calbiochem (revision 27 May 1997). 		N/A
9 US20050261189A1 101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101 1. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13,14, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by WO 200017326 Al, March 30,2000 (of record). 2. Claims 1-10, 17-19,2 1,23-30, 32,33-37, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent ~ ~ p l i c a t i o20n0 60 1 15464, filed with a claim of priority to June 25, 2003 1. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Application 200601 15464 as applied to claims 1-10,23-30,32, 33, 35-37,40,41, and 43 above, and further in view of Reichsman et al., J. Cell Biol. 1996 135: 819-827. 2. Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Application 200601 15464 as applied to claims 1-10,23-30, 32, 33, 35-37’, 40,41, and 43 above, and further in view of US Patent 159462, ~ecembe1r 2,2000 1. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. 2. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 3. Claims 17-22, 34, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 4. Claims 1, 2, 24, and 35 are rejected under.35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
10 US20050260243A1 103 rejections N/A N/A 1. Claims 1-5, 7-10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beerse et a/. (US Patent 6,190,675Bl) in view of Tautvydas et a/. (WO 01143549 A2; cited in the IDS). 2. Claims 1 and 5-6 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beerse et a/. (US Patent 6,190,675Bl) in view of Tautvydas et a/. (WO 01143549 A2; cited in the IDS), further in view of Diehl et a/. (US Patent 5,591,442). N/A
11 US20050260161A1 102, 103 and 112 rejections N/A Claims 46-47,49-51 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Eriksson et al. (WO 00127879). Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Erikkson et al. (WO 00127879 in view ofAlitalo et al. (WO 01162942). Claims 46-54 (presently numbered 30-38, respectively) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
12 US20060014719A1 112 rejection N/A N/A N/A Claims 1-4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
13 US20060014165A1 112 rejection N/A N/A N/A Claims 16-22, 26-32, 11 6, and 149 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make andlor use the invention.
14 US20060019890A1 102, 103 and 112 rejections N/A Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Burger et al. (American Heart Journal, December 2002). Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JACC Abstracts, February 2000, citation 4 in the IDS of 8/12/05) in view of Ogawa et al. (Can J Physiol Pharmacol, 2001). Claims 1-8 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.
15 US20060079574A1 101, 102 and 112 rejection Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of prior U.S. Patent No. 5,925,672 of record. Claims 1-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Weiss (U.S.Patent No. 5,208,244) of record. N/A Claims 2,6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
16 US20060079533A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
17 US20060116315A1 102 and 112 rejections N/A Claims 2 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Lee et al., US 2003/0224450, filing date of 0812001 for reasons of record as applied to claim 2 in section 10 of Paper mailed on April 2,2007. N/A Claim 2 and new claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as containing 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, for reasons of record as applied to claim 2 in section 3 of Paper mailed on April 12,2007.
18 US20060210541A1 103 rejection N/A N/A Claims l,2, 5, 6, 8, and 1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cutler (WO 98109644) taken with Wilson et al. (US 5,866,552). N/A
19 US20060211769A1 112 rejection N/A N/A N/A Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for compounds used in working examples on pages 22-24 of the specification including compounds A6VlOCI through A6B10C4 as well as for analog compounds 2-26 of A6B10C4, does not reasonably provide enablement for all of the possible structures encompassed in claim 24.
20 US20060211020A1 112 rejection N/A N/A N/A Claims 1, 5-1 2, 14-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, first paragraph, as containing 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.
21 US20070010435A1 102, 103 and 112 rejections N/A Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by WO 99127944 to Schenk (Cite No. BE on Applicants’ IDS dated 17 October 2005). Claims 14 and 15 are under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO99127944 to Schenk, in view of Carro et al. (citation CS on IDS dated 17 October 2005). Claims 1-8, 10 and 13-1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method of treating a patient suffering from Alzheimer’s disease (AD) comprising administration of K6Apl -30-NH2(EI8El9) or of an antibody or antibody fragment which binds to amyloid-beta, does not reasonably provide enablement for treatment of any patient with any amyloid disease comprising administration of any compound which binds to free amyloid-beta in a body fluid of the patient.
22 US20070010484A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A
23 US20070049614A1 103 and 112 rejections N/A N/A Claims 1 - 1 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bradette et al., Gastroenterology, and Caras et a]., Gastroenterology, in view of Stacher et al., British Journal of --- Clinical Pharmacoloay. Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in the last Office Action because the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
24 US20070054328A1 Rejection information not available N/A N/A N/A N/A

Bilski Diagnostic Methods Sample

Retrieved from "https://www.dolcera.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bilski_35_USC_§_101_Rejections_Patent_Application_List&oldid=5356"