Difference between revisions of "Bilski Diagnostic Methods Big Sample Sheet"

Revision as of 23:28, 17 April 2009

S.No.	Publication No.	Date of Rejection	Filing date	Rejection type	101 Rejection	102 Rejection	103 Rejection	112 Rejection
1	US 20080091086	3/2/2009	10/9/2007	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by WO 01185021 A1 to Aguilera et al.	N/A	N/A
2	US 20080086045	10/22/2008	12/7/2007	101, 103 and 112 rejections	1. Claims 1-30 and 58-1 06 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,309,607. 2. Claims 1-6, 10-15,21-33,35, 58-63, 67-72, 76, 82-84, 88 and 95-105 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 25,28,33-47 and 49-5 1 of copending Application No. 1 11409,735.	N/A	1. Claims 58-67,70-71,78-88 and 105-107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 (US 5,372,946, submitted in the IDS filed on December 7,2007). 2. Claims 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 (5,372,946) in view of Blake (US 5,3 16,730, also cited in the IDS filed on December 7,2007). 3. Claims 72-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 in view of Jaeger (US 4,116,635, also cited in the IDS filed on December 7,2007). 4. Claims 76-77 and 95-1 04 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 in view of Beythien et a1 (article submitted in the IDS filed on December 7,2007). 5. Claims 89-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art in the specification.	Claims 16 and 95 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.
3	US 20080086035	11/14/2008	10/20/2006	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 6-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257.	N/A	N/A
4	US 20080086038	3/6/2009	9/18/2007	101 rejection	Claims 1-2 and 4-1 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 - 82 of U.S. Patent No. 6,859,280.	N/A	N/A	N/A
5	US 20080083414	11/13/2008	10/20/2006	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 6-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257 which incorporates by reference in paragraph 0019 of the specification, Malackowski et al. US Patent Publication No. 200110034530 (hereinafter Malackowski).	N/A	N/A
6	US 20080082022	11/26/2008	9/8/2006	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Keitzer (US 3,363,619).	1. Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Keitzer (US 3,363,619). 2. Claims 12-1 9 and 21 -24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kreitzer as applied to claims 1-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Rollema (US 5,377,101). 3. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kreitzer in view of Rollema as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Alyfuku (US 5,410,471).	N/A
7	US 20080139953	12/12/2008	11/1/2006	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-3 & 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Abreu (US 2004/0242976)	1. Claims 4-7 & 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Owen et al. (US 200310055460). 2. Claims 30-32,39 & 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Owen et al. (US 200310055460). 3. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Owen et al. (US 200310055460). 4. Claim 19-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Schraag (US 5,309,918). 5. Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Ortega et al. (US 200610 13600 1). 6. Claims 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Westra et al. (US 200610183434). 7. Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Eshelman et al. (US 200310001742). 8. Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Cooper et al. (US 5,294,928)	N/A
8	US 20080132777	3/3/2009	2/1/2005	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 21 - 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 - 17 of copending Application No. 11/044,239.	N/A	1. Claims 21 - 40 and 45 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Helfer (US 6,925,322 B2) in view of Uzgiris et al. (US 6,4 70,204 Bl). 2. Claims 41 - 44 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Helfer (US 6,925,322 B2) in view of Uzgiris et al. (US 6,470,204 Bl), in view of Tsujita (US 5,8 79,284).	Claims 1, 34, 36, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,firstparagraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
9	US 20080119709	10/8/2008	10/31/2006	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-1 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 1115551 56.	1. Claims I, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Zocchi (US Patent Application Publication 200610040333). 2. Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Rasdal (US Patent Application Publication 2005101 54271 ).	Claims 11 -1 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Causey (US Patent Application Publication 200410073095) in view of Zocchi.	N/A
10	US 20080119705	10/2/2008	10/31/2007	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	1. Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by "eDiab: A system for Monitoring, Assisting and Educating People with Diabetes", ICCHP, 2006 to Luque et al (Hereinafter "Luque"). 2. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by 2002101 93679 to Malave et al (Hereinafter "Malave").	1. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luque in view of US 2002101 93679 to Malave et al (Hereinafter "Malave"). 2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luque in view of US 200610025663 to Talbot et al (Hereinafter "Talbot").	Claims I I, 16 and 19 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.
11	US 20080114214	11/13/2008	10/20/2006	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257 which incorporates by reference in paragraph 0019 of the specification, Malackowski et al. US Patent Publication No. 200110034530 (hereinafter Malackowski).	N/A	N/A
12	US 20080114212	11/13/2008	10/10/2006	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257 which incorporates by reference in paragraph 0019 of the specification, Malackowski et al. US Patent Publication No. 200110034530 (hereinafter Malackowski).	N/A	N/A
13	US 20080097240	10/22/2008	4/11/2007	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claims 1,4-7, 80 and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Henning et al .(US 6,155,992).	1. Claims 6 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al .(US 6,155,992) in view of Bojan et al. (US 200210099308 Al). 2. Claims 76 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al .(US 6,155,992) in view of Eppstein et al. (US 2002101 69394 Al). 3. Claims 77-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al .(US 6,155,992) in view of Eppstein et al. (US 200210169394 Al) and in further view of Bojan et al. (US 200210099308 Al). 4. Claims 84-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al. (US 6,155,992) in view of Bojan et al. (US 200210099308 Al). 5. Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al. (US 6,155,992) in view of Roe et al. (US 200410236251 Al).	N/A
14	US 20080097231	12/2/2008	10/18/2006	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claims 1-2, 4-1 3, 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Geva (US 7222054).	Claims 3, 14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geva (7222054) in view of Budde (3556084).	N/A
15	US 20080097226	2/2/2009	6/9/2006	102, 103 and 112 rejections	N/A	Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kurtz et al. (US 4,231,354, hereinafter Kurtz).	1. Claims 2, 10-1 2 and 14-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz in view of Recchia et al. ("Reduced Nitric Oxide Production and Altered Myocardial Metabolism During the Decompensation of Pacing-Induced Heart Failure in the Conscious Dog," hereinafter Recchia). 2. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz.	Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
16	US 20080097175	11/24/2008	9/29/2006	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claims 10-1 6, 23, 24, and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ali et al. (US 20051006541 7).	Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 20051006541 7) in view of Mechlenburg (US 200110018547).	N/A
17	US 20080097169	12/9/2008	8/29/2006	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	1. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 13-1 4, 16, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack et al. (US 56661 04) in view of Rosenfeld (US 58271 91 ). 2. Claims 3 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daly et al. 3. Claims 5, 22, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Butte et al. 4. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Policker et al. (US 7330753). 5. Claims 8, I I, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack, Rosenfeld and Policker as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Ganguly et al. (US 4926871 ). 6. Claims 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Mault et al. (US 200302081 13). 7. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack and Rosenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowman et al. (US 20050283327). 8. Claims 23, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld and Butte as applied to claims 22 and 24 above, and further in view of Shalon et al. (US 20060064037).	N/A
18	US 20080091121	12/1/2008	3/20/2007	102, 103 and 112 rejections	N/A	Claims 1-9, 13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Asada (U.S. Patent No. 6,236,037 BI).	Claims 10-1 2, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asada (U.S. Patent No. 6,236,037 Bl).	Claim 15 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.
19	US 20080091114	2/19/2009	12/29/2006	102, 103 and 112 rejections	N/A	1. Claims 8, 10, 22-26, 30, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Hess (2007101 56061 ). 2. Claims 34, 35, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Stahmann (200610258952).	1. Claims 1-6, 9, 11 -21, 27-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess (2007101 56061) in view of Stahmann (200610258952). 2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess (200710156061) in view of Stahmann (200610258952) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pitts Crick (6,104,949). 3. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sta hmann (200610258952).	Claims I, 4, 5, 7, 9, I I, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
20	US 20080091092	2/9/2009	10/12/2007	103 and 112 rejections	N/A	N/A	Claims 1-8 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 20021003531 5).	Claims 4-7 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.
21	US 20080091090	11/28/2008	7/9/2007	102 rejection	N/A	1. Claims 1,2,4 - 6,8 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Segalowitz U.S. Patent No. 5,511,553. 2. Claims 1 - 5 and 7 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Stivoric et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,285,090.	N/A	N/A
22	US 20080091089	11/28/2008	7/9/2007	102 rejection	N/A	1. Claims 1,2,4 - 6,8 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Segalowitz U.S. Patent No. 5,511,553. 2. Claims 1 - 3,5,7 - 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Stivoric et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,285,090.	N/A	N/A
23	US 20080082016	2/5/2009	10/3/2006	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	Claims 1-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hardahl (US 2005101 77049) in view of Reinhoff, Jr et al. (US 2002/0133495)	N/A
24	US 20080082015	3/4/2009	10/3/2006	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Fischell et al. (PG Publication 200410059238) in view of Aversano et al. (200410034284)	N/A
25	US 20080082005	12/17/2008	7/3/2007	103 and 112 rejections	N/A	N/A	Claims I, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Penner, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 200510288727A1 ("Penner").	Claim 7 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.
26	US 20080081979	2/17/2009	9/15/2006	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	Claims 1-3, 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim) (US 200610025670 Al), and further in view of Chen et al. (Chen) (US 2007101 00952 A1 ).	N/A
27	US 20080081975	2/13/2009	9/28/2006	103 and 112 rejections	N/A	N/A	1. Claims 1-1 3 and 15-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah et al. "Noninvasive Early Detection of Brain Edema in Mice by Near-Infrared Light Scattering," Journal of Neuroscience Research 80:293-299 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 6,668,181 B2). 2. Claims 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah et al. "Noninvasive Early Detection of Brain Edema in Mice by Near-Infrared Light Scattering," Journal of Neuroscience Research 80:293-299 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 6,668,181 B2) and Schmitt et al. (US 200410230106). 3. Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah et al. "Noninvasive Early Detection of Brain Edema in Mice by Near-Infrared Light Scattering," Journal of Neuroscience Research 80:293-299 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 6,668,181 B2) and Yamamoto et al. (US 200310088162 AI). 4. Claims 13, 15, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah in view of Wenzel as applied to claims 13 and 19 above, and further in view of Giller (US 6,567,690).	Claims 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for isobestic wavelengths of water 11 80 and 1300, does not reasonably provide enablement for isobestic wavelengths in general.
28	US 20080081973	10/28/2008	9/28/2006	102, 103 and 112 rejections	N/A	Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Swedlow et a1.’417 (cited by Applicant).	1. Claims 8, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swedlow et a1.’4 17, as applied to claims 1, 17 and 25, further in view of Gravenstein et a1.’825 (USPN 5,10 1,825). 2. Claims 7, 10, 18, 20, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swedlow et a1.’417, as applied to claims 1, 17 and 25, further in view of Gravenstein et a1.’825, further in view of Aldrich’064. 3. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9- 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 3 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldberger et a1.’464 (USPN 4,685,464) further in view of Hecke1’995 (US Pub No. 200210 137995) further in view of Aldrich’064.	Claims 14, 15, 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
29	US 20080183104	1/30/2009	1/11/2008	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claims 12-14 and 16-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by DiGioia, Ill et al. (US 6,002,859, hereinafter DiGioia) as broadly as claimed.	Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DiGioia in view of Taylor et al. (US 6,231,526 Bl , hereinafter Taylor).	N/A
30	US 20080171949	3/23/2009	1/18/2007	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Alfano (US 5042494)	1. Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coppleson et al. (US 5800350) in view of Nordstrom et al. (US71 27282). 2. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coppleson et al. modified by Nordstrom as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Baharav et al. (US 697271 4). 3. Claims 10-1 6 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baharav et al (US 6972714) in view of Nordstrom et al. (US 7127282). 4. Claims 17-22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baharav et al. modified by Nordstrom as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Coppleson et al. (US 5800350). 5. Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baharav modified by Nordstrom and Coppleson as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jacques (US 4364008). 6. Claims 31 -32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alfano as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Coppleson (US 5800350) and Nordstrom et al. (US 7127282).	N/A
31	US 20080167565	1/8/2009	1/9/2007	102, 103 and 112 rejections	N/A	Claims 1-7, 12, 15-21, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Burton (US 200710032733).	Claims 8-1 0, 13-1 4, 22-24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burton (US 200710032733) in view of Flick et al. (US 6993377).	1. Claims 15-28 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.
32	US 20080161731	12/10/2008	12/27/2006	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	1. Claims I, 2, I I, 29, 30 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 Al) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 A1 ) 2. Claims 3, 5, 12, 31, 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 Al) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 Al) as applied to claims 1 and 29 above, an in further view of Solomonow et al. (US 5628722) 3. Claims 4, 6, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 Al) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 Al) and Solomonow et al. (US 5628722) as applied to claims 3,5,31 and 33 above, and in further view of Vosch (US 2007100731 32). 4. Claims 7, 8, 13, 35, 36 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 Al) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 Al) as applied to claims 1 and 29, and in further view of Vosch (US 2007100731 32) 5. Claims 9, 10 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 A1 ) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 A1 ) as applied to claims 1 and 29, and in further view of Brann (US 6,059,576). 6. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 A1 ) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 A1 ) and Vosch (US 2007100731 32) as applied to claim 35 above and in further view of Brann (US 6,059,576).	N/A
33	US 20080161709	12/24/2008	10/13/2006	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claims 1-3, 7-1 2, 14 and 16-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mault (US 20021-1 73728).	1. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault (US 2002101 73728) in view of Yasushi et al. (6,485,418). 2. Claims 4-6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault (US 2002101 73728) in view of Jones, Jr. et al. (US 5,076,093).	N/A
34	US 20080161701	11/13/2008	12/28/2006	102 and 112 rejections	N/A	Claims 1-9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Haller et al. (US 200210052539).	N/A	Claims 1-9 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.
35	US 20080161668	2/12/2009	12/29/2006	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	1. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ben-Haim (US 20020087089) in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 20060275775). 2. Claims I, 2, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafir (US 6371 930) in view of Ben-Haim (WO 97124981). 3. Claims 13-1 6, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafir (US 6371 930) in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 200610276775). 4. Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafir in view of Ben-Haim and Further in view of Hilton et al. (US 3250012).	N/A
36	US 20080161653	2/5/2009	4/16/2007	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by TW 357077. ’707 discloses in the English translation, and by applicant’s admission in the disclosure, all of the limitations of the instant invention	Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lubell.	N/A
37	US 20080154143	2/5/2009	1/11/2007	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-1 4 and 16-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Xue et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 200510038352 Al. Xue et al. ’352 anticipates:	1. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xue et al. ’352 as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Arnold et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,713,367. 2. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xue et al. ’352 as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Xue et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,792,065.	N/A

Difference between revisions of "Bilski Diagnostic Methods Big Sample Sheet"

Revision as of 23:28, 17 April 2009

Contents

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Tools

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 = =
+{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''S.No.'''</font>
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Publication No.'''</font>
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Date of Rejection'''</font>
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Filing date'''</font>
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Rejection type'''</font>
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''101 Rejection'''</font>
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''102 Rejection'''</font>
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''103 Rejection'''</font>
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''112 Rejection'''</font>
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080091086
+|align = "center"|3/2/2009
+|align = "center"|10/9/2007
+|101 and 102 rejections
+|Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
+|Claims 1- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by WO 01185021 A1 to Aguilera et al.
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080086045
+|align = "center"|10/22/2008
+|align = "center"|12/7/2007
+|101, 103 and 112 rejections
+|1. Claims 1-30 and 58-1 06 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,309,607.                                                             2. Claims 1-6, 10-15,21-33,35, 58-63, 67-72, 76, 82-84, 88 and 95-105 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 25,28,33-47 and 49-5 1 of copending Application No. 1 11409,735.
+|N/A
+|1. Claims 58-67,70-71,78-88 and 105-107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 (US 5,372,946, submitted in the IDS filed on December 7,2007).                                                  2. Claims 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 (5,372,946) in view of Blake (US 5,3 16,730, also cited in the IDS filed on December 7,2007).                                              3. Claims 72-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 in view of Jaeger (US 4,116,635, also cited in the IDS filed on December 7,2007).                                                               4. Claims 76-77 and 95-1 04 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 in view of Beythien et a1 (article submitted in the IDS filed on December 7,2007).                                             5. Claims 89-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 in view of Applicant<nowiki>’</nowiki>s admitted prior art in the specification.
+|Claims 16 and 95 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.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''3'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080086035
+|align = "center"|11/14/2008
+|align = "center"|10/20/2006
+|101 and 102 rejections
+|Claims 6-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.
+|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257.
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''4'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080086038
+|align = "center"|3/6/2009
+|align = "center"|9/18/2007
+|101 rejection
+|Claims 1-2 and 4-1 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 - 82 of U.S. Patent No. 6,859,280.
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''5'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080083414
+|align = "center"|11/13/2008
+|align = "center"|10/20/2006
+|101 and 102 rejections
+|Claims 6-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.
+|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257 which incorporates by reference in paragraph 0019 of the specification, Malackowski et al. US<br>Patent Publication No. 200110034530 (hereinafter Malackowski).
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''6'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080082022
+|align = "center"|11/26/2008
+|align = "center"|9/8/2006
+|101, 102 and 103 rejections
+|Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
+|Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in<br>the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Keitzer (US 3,363,619).
+|1. Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Keitzer (US 3,363,619).                                                                                   2. Claims 12-1 9 and 21 -24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kreitzer as applied to claims 1-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Rollema (US 5,377,101).                                                   3. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kreitzer in view of Rollema as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Alyfuku (US 5,410,471).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''7'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080139953
+|align = "center"|12/12/2008
+|align = "center"|11/1/2006
+|101, 102 and 103 rejections
+|Claims 1-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
+|Claims 1-3 & 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Abreu (US 2004/0242976)
+|1. Claims 4-7 & 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Owen et al. (US 200310055460).                                                                                                  2. Claims 30-32,39 & 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Owen et al. (US 200310055460).                                                                                     3. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Owen et al. (US 200310055460).                                                                                                          4. Claim 19-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Schraag (US 5,309,918).                                                                                                                     5. Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Ortega et al. (US 200610 13600 1).                                                                                               6. Claims 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Westra et al. (US 200610183434).                                                                                                 7. Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Eshelman et al. (US 200310001742).                                                                                                    8. Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abreu (US 200410242976) in view of Cooper et al. (US 5,294,928)
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''8'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080132777
+|align = "center"|3/3/2009
+|align = "center"|2/1/2005
+|101, 103 and 112 rejections
+|Claims 21 - 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 - 17 of copending Application No. 11/044,239.
+|N/A
+|1. Claims 21 - 40 and 45 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Helfer (US 6,925,322 B2) in view of Uzgiris et al. (US 6,4 70,204 Bl).                                                                                                 2. Claims 41 - 44 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Helfer (US 6,925,322 B2) in view of Uzgiris et al. (US 6,470,204 Bl), in view of Tsujita (US 5,8 79,284).
+|Claims 1, 34, 36, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,firstparagraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''9'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080119709
+|align = "center"|10/8/2008
+|align = "center"|10/31/2006
+|101, 102 and 103 rejections
+|Claims 1-1 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 1115551 56.
+|1. Claims I, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Zocchi (US Patent Application Publication 200610040333).                                                                                                          2. Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Rasdal (US Patent Application Publication 2005101 54271 ).
+|Claims 11 -1 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Causey (US Patent Application Publication 200410073095) in view of Zocchi.
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''10'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080119705
+|align = "center"|10/2/2008
+|align = "center"|10/31/2007
+|101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections
+|Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
+|1. Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by "eDiab: A system for Monitoring, Assisting and Educating People with Diabetes", ICCHP, 2006 to Luque et al (Hereinafter "Luque").                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           2. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by 2002101 93679 to Malave et al (Hereinafter "Malave").
+|1. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luque in view of US 2002101 93679 to Malave et al (Hereinafter "Malave").                                                                                                             2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luque in view of US 200610025663 to Talbot et al (Hereinafter "Talbot").
+|Claims I I, 16 and 19 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.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''11'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080114214
+|align = "center"|11/13/2008
+|align = "center"|10/20/2006
+|101 and 102 rejections
+|Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.
+|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257 which incorporates by reference in paragraph 0019 of the specification, Malackowski et al. US Patent Publication No. 200110034530 (hereinafter Malackowski).
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''12'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080114212
+|align = "center"|11/13/2008
+|align = "center"|10/10/2006
+|101 and 102 rejections
+|Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.
+|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257 which incorporates by reference in paragraph 0019 of the specification, Malackowski et al. US Patent Publication No. 200110034530 (hereinafter Malackowski).
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''13'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080097240
+|align = "center"|10/22/2008
+|align = "center"|4/11/2007
+|102 and 103 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1,4-7, 80 and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Henning et al .(US 6,155,992).
+|1. Claims 6 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al .(US 6,155,992) in view of Bojan et al. (US 200210099308 Al).                                                                                                      2. Claims 76 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al .(US 6,155,992) in view of Eppstein et al. (US 2002101 69394 Al).                                                                                    3. Claims 77-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al .(US 6,155,992) in view of Eppstein et al. (US 200210169394 Al) and in further view of Bojan et al. (US 200210099308 Al).   4. Claims 84-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al. (US 6,155,992) in view of Bojan et al. (US 200210099308 Al).                                                                                          5. Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al. (US 6,155,992) in view of Roe et al. (US 200410236251 Al).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''14'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080097231
+|align = "center"|12/2/2008
+|align = "center"|10/18/2006
+|102 and 103 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-2, 4-1 3, 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Geva (US 7222054).
+|Claims 3, 14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geva (7222054) in view of Budde (3556084).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''15'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080097226
+|align = "center"|2/2/2009
+|align = "center"|6/9/2006
+|102, 103 and 112 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kurtz et al. (US 4,231,354, hereinafter Kurtz).
+|1. Claims 2, 10-1 2 and 14-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz in view of Recchia et al. ("Reduced Nitric Oxide Production and Altered Myocardial Metabolism During the Decompensation of Pacing-Induced Heart Failure in the Conscious Dog," hereinafter Recchia).                                                                                                                                                                                       2. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz.
+|Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''16'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080097175
+|align = "center"|11/24/2008
+|align = "center"|9/29/2006
+|102 and 103 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 10-1 6, 23, 24, and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ali et al. (US 20051006541 7).
+|Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 20051006541 7) in view of Mechlenburg (US 200110018547).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''17'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080097169
+|align = "center"|12/9/2008
+|align = "center"|8/29/2006
+|103 rejection
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|1. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 13-1 4, 16, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack et al. (US 56661 04) in view of Rosenfeld (US 58271 91 ).                                                                      2. Claims 3 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daly et al.                                                              3. Claims 5, 22, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Butte et al.                                                            4. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Policker et al. (US 7330753).                          5. Claims 8, I I, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack, Rosenfeld and Policker as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Ganguly et al. (US 4926871 ).               6. Claims 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Mault et al. (US 200302081 13).                    7. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack and Rosenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowman et al. (US 20050283327).                                                          8. Claims 23, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld and Butte as applied to claims 22 and 24 above, and further in view of Shalon et al. (US 20060064037).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''18'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080091121
+|align = "center"|12/1/2008
+|align = "center"|3/20/2007
+|102, 103 and 112 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-9, 13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Asada (U.S. Patent No. 6,236,037 BI).
+|Claims 10-1 2, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asada (U.S. Patent No. 6,236,037 Bl).
+|Claim 15 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.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''19'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080091114
+|align = "center"|2/19/2009
+|align = "center"|12/29/2006
+|102, 103 and 112 rejections
+|N/A
+|1. Claims 8, 10, 22-26, 30, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Hess (2007101 56061 ).                                                                                                                                          2. Claims 34, 35, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Stahmann (200610258952).
+|1. Claims 1-6, 9, 11 -21, 27-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess (2007101 56061) in view of Stahmann (200610258952).                                                                             2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess (200710156061) in view of Stahmann (200610258952) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pitts Crick (6,104,949).                 3. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sta hmann (200610258952).
+|Claims I, 4, 5, 7, 9, I I, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''20'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080091092
+|align = "center"|2/9/2009
+|align = "center"|10/12/2007
+|103 and 112 rejections
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-8 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 20021003531 5).
+|Claims 4-7 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.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''21'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080091090
+|align = "center"|11/28/2008
+|align = "center"|7/9/2007
+|102 rejection
+|N/A
+|1. Claims 1,2,4 - 6,8 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Segalowitz U.S. Patent No. 5,511,553.                                                                                                                                     2. Claims 1 - 5 and 7 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Stivoric et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,285,090.
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''22'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080091089
+|align = "center"|11/28/2008
+|align = "center"|7/9/2007
+|102 rejection
+|N/A
+|1. Claims 1,2,4 - 6,8 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Segalowitz U.S. Patent No. 5,511,553.                                                                                                                                     2. Claims 1 - 3,5,7 - 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Stivoric et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,285,090.
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''23'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080082016
+|align = "center"|2/5/2009
+|align = "center"|10/3/2006
+|103 rejection
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hardahl (US 2005101 77049) in view of Reinhoff, Jr et al. (US 2002/0133495)
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''24'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080082015
+|align = "center"|3/4/2009
+|align = "center"|10/3/2006
+|103 rejection
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Fischell et al. (PG Publication 200410059238) in view of Aversano et al. (200410034284)
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''25'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080082005
+|align = "center"|12/17/2008
+|align = "center"|7/3/2007
+|103 and 112 rejections
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|Claims I, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O<nowiki>’</nowiki>Brien in view of Penner, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 200510288727A1 ("Penner").
+|Claim 7 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.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''26'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080081979
+|align = "center"|2/17/2009
+|align = "center"|9/15/2006
+|103 rejection
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-3, 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim) (US 200610025670 Al), and further in view of Chen et al. (Chen) (US 2007101 00952 A1 ).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''27'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080081975
+|align = "center"|2/13/2009
+|align = "center"|9/28/2006
+|103 and 112 rejections
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|1. Claims 1-1 3 and 15-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah et al. "Noninvasive Early Detection of Brain Edema in Mice by Near-Infrared Light Scattering," Journal of Neuroscience Research 80:293-299 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 6,668,181 B2).                                                                                                                                                                                                      2. Claims 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah et al. "Noninvasive Early Detection of Brain Edema in Mice by Near-Infrared Light Scattering," Journal of Neuroscience Research 80:293-299 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 6,668,181 B2) and Schmitt et al. (US 200410230106).                                                                                                                                                                   3. Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah et al. "Noninvasive Early Detection of Brain Edema in Mice by Near-Infrared Light Scattering," Journal of Neuroscience Research 80:293-299 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 6,668,181 B2) and Yamamoto et al. (US 200310088162 AI).                                                                                                                                                          4. Claims 13, 15, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah in view of Wenzel as applied to claims 13 and 19 above, and further in view of Giller (US 6,567,690).
+|Claims 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for isobestic wavelengths of water 11 80 and 1300, does not reasonably provide enablement for isobestic wavelengths in general.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''28'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080081973
+|align = "center"|10/28/2008
+|align = "center"|9/28/2006
+|102, 103 and 112 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Swedlow et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>417 (cited by Applicant).
+|1. Claims 8, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swedlow et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>4 17, as applied to claims 1, 17 and 25, further in view of Gravenstein et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>825 (USPN 5,10 1,825).                        2. Claims 7, 10, 18, 20, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swedlow et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>417, as applied to claims 1, 17 and 25, further in view of Gravenstein et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>825, further in<br>view of Aldrich<nowiki>’</nowiki>064.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             3. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9- 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 3 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldberger et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>464 (USPN 4,685,464) further in view of Hecke1<nowiki>’</nowiki>995 (US Pub No. 200210 137995) further in view of Aldrich<nowiki>’</nowiki>064.
+|Claims 14, 15, 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''29'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080183104
+|align = "center"|1/30/2009
+|align = "center"|1/11/2008
+|102 and 103 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 12-14 and 16-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by DiGioia, Ill et al. (US 6,002,859, hereinafter DiGioia) as broadly as claimed.
+|Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DiGioia in view of Taylor et al. (US 6,231,526 Bl , hereinafter Taylor).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''30'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080171949
+|align = "center"|3/23/2009
+|align = "center"|1/18/2007
+|102 and 103 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Alfano (US 5042494)
+|1. Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coppleson et al. (US 5800350) in view of Nordstrom et al. (US71 27282).                                                                             2. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coppleson et al. modified by Nordstrom as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Baharav et al. (US 697271 4).                                       3. Claims 10-1 6 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baharav et al (US 6972714) in view of Nordstrom et al. (US 7127282).                                                                                      4. Claims 17-22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baharav et al. modified by Nordstrom as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Coppleson et al. (US 5800350).       5. Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baharav modified by Nordstrom and Coppleson as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jacques (US 4364008).                6. Claims 31 -32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alfano as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Coppleson (US 5800350) and Nordstrom et al. (US 7127282).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''31'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080167565
+|align = "center"|1/8/2009
+|align = "center"|1/9/2007
+|102, 103 and 112 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-7, 12, 15-21, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Burton (US 200710032733).
+|Claims 8-1 0, 13-1 4, 22-24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burton (US 200710032733) in view of Flick et al. (US 6993377).
+|1. Claims 15-28 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.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''32'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080161731
+|align = "center"|12/10/2008
+|align = "center"|12/27/2006
+|103 rejection
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|1. Claims I, 2, I I, 29, 30 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 Al) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 A1 )                                                                           2. Claims 3, 5, 12, 31, 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 Al) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 Al) as applied to claims 1 and 29 above, an in further view of Solomonow et al. (US 5628722)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                3. Claims 4, 6, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 Al) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 Al) and Solomonow et al. (US 5628722) as applied to claims 3,5,31 and 33 above, and in further view of Vosch (US 2007100731 32).                                                                                                                                                                                                                   4. Claims 7, 8, 13, 35, 36 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 Al) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 Al) as applied to claims 1 and 29, and in further view of Vosch (US 2007100731 32)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              5. Claims 9, 10 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 A1 ) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 A1 ) as applied to claims 1 and 29, and in further view of Brann (US 6,059,576).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         6. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 200310083596 A1 ) in view of Song (US 2004101 67420 A1 ) and Vosch (US 2007100731 32) as applied to claim 35 above and in further view of Brann (US 6,059,576).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''33'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080161709
+|align = "center"|12/24/2008
+|align = "center"|10/13/2006
+|102 and 103 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-3, 7-1 2, 14 and 16-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mault (US 20021-1 73728).
+|1. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault (US 2002101 73728) in view of Yasushi et al. (6,485,418).                                                                                                                       2. Claims 4-6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault (US 2002101 73728) in view of Jones, Jr. et al. (US 5,076,093).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''34'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080161701
+|align = "center"|11/13/2008
+|align = "center"|12/28/2006
+|102 and 112 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Haller et al. (US 200210052539).
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-9 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.
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''35'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080161668
+|align = "center"|2/12/2009
+|align = "center"|12/29/2006
+|103 rejection
+|N/A
+|N/A
+|1. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ben-Haim (US 20020087089) in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 20060275775).                                                                                             2. Claims I, 2, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafir (US 6371 930) in view of Ben-Haim (WO 97124981).                                                                                                           3. Claims 13-1 6, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafir (US 6371 930) in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 200610276775). 4. Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over<br>Shafir in view of Ben-Haim and Further in view of Hilton et al. (US 3250012).
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''36'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080161653
+|align = "center"|2/5/2009
+|align = "center"|4/16/2007
+|102 and 103 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by TW 357077. <nowiki>’</nowiki>707 discloses in the English translation, and by applicant<nowiki>’</nowiki>s admission in the disclosure, all of the limitations of the instant invention
+|Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lubell.
+|N/A
+|-
+|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''37'''</font>
+|align = "center"|US 20080154143
+|align = "center"|2/5/2009
+|align = "center"|1/11/2007
+|102 and 103 rejections
+|N/A
+|Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-1 4 and 16-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Xue et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 200510038352 Al. Xue et al. <nowiki>’</nowiki>352 anticipates:
+|1. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xue et al. <nowiki>’</nowiki>352 as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Arnold et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,713,367.                               2. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xue et al. <nowiki>’</nowiki>352 as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Xue et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,792,065.
+|N/A
+|-
+|}
 = =
 = =
 = =