Difference between revisions of "101 rejections of Diagnostic Patents(Date of Rejections After October-30-2008)"

From DolceraWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(No difference)

Revision as of 20:12, 29 April 2009

Sl.No. Patent/Publication No. Date of Publication Application Date Date of rejection FR or N/FR Rejection type 101 Rejection 102 Rejection 103 Rejection 112 Rejection Other than Bilski citations in 101 rejection
1 US20070060798A1 3/15/2007 9/15/2005 2/25/2009 N/FR 101 and 103 rejections Claims 1-9 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-9 and 17-22 are directed to a method that does not pass the machine or-
transformation test and are therefore non-statutory (In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).) 		N/A Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oya (U.S. Publication 2005/0046699) in view of Glukhovsky (U.S. Publication 2003/0174208). N/A N/A
2 US20060270950A1 11/30/2006 4/11/2006 2/18/2009 N/FR 101 and 103 rejections In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane). Claims 7-14 and 21-23 are process claims in which data is merely gathered or outputted (1) without being tied to a particular machine or apparatus, and (2) without having a transformative effect N/A Claims 7-17 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herr et al. (US Pub No. 2005/0070834) in view of Dariush (US Patent No. 7,135,003). N/A N/A
3 US20060253302A1 11/9/2006 5/3/2006 3/18/2009 N/FR 101 and 103 rejections Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to non-statutory subject matter. In re Bilski, 88
USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 		N/A Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loeb Pre-Grant Pub. No. 2002/0178030 in view of Henley Pre-Grant Pub No. 2005/0182660. N/A Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parkerv. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-88 (1876)
4 US20060247510A1 11/2/2006 9/29/2005 2/25/2009 N/FR 101 and 103 rejections Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Federal Circuit precedent requires that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.c. 101 must "(1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transform a particular article into a different state or thing." (In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2008).) N/A Claims 1,5,6,9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of the article entitled "Automatic segmentation of the colon for virtual colonoscopy" by Wyatt et ai. (hereinafter "Wyatt") and Vining et aI., U.S. Patent No. 6,366,800 (hereinafter "Vining"). N/A N/A
5 US20060241409A1 10/26/2006 2/11/2005 3/18/2009 N/FR 101, 103 and 112 rejections Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 15 and 16 are directed towards methods of estimating electromagnetic material parameters, the steps of which comprise the mere manipulation of electromagnetic signals without transforming a particular article to a different state or thing. Methods which do not meet the machine or transformation requirements have previously been held as non-statutory (In re Bilski, F.3d, 2008 WL 4757110,88 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1385 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30,2008)). N/A Claims 1-6, 13-21,28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Veen et al (US PO Pubs. No. 2003/0088180 AI), hereinafter Van Veen (’180), of record, in view of Kang et al (A New 2-D Image Reconstruction Algorithm Based on FDTD and Design Sensitivity Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. Claims 4,9-12 and 24-27 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. N/A
6 US20060231108A1 10/19/2006 4/18/2005 3/13/2009 FR 101 and 103 rejections In re Bilski and the machine-or-transformation test. The physical article does not necessarily appear in the body as an element that is necessarily present to satisfy the claim. Therefore claims 13-17 stand rejected. N/A Claims 1-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Vara et aI, (US 6,063,030), hereinafter Vara in view of Shostack et aI., (US 2004/0249811 AI), Shostack N/A N/A
7 US20060064396A1 3/23/2006 4/14/2005 11/24/2008 N/FR 101 and 112 rejections Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 89-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims are drawn to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are rejected for the following reasons. For a process that comprises an abstract idea to be statutory, it must compnse a practical application of the abstract idea. Claimed subject matter may require a practical application by claiming, or requiring use of, a machine, or by requiring a physical transfonnation of an article to a different state or thing [In Re Bilski (88 USPQ2d 1385 Fed. Cir. 2008)]. N/A N/A Claims 1-46 and 89-91 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 N/A
8 US20060064020A1 3/23/2006 9/20/2004 4/15/2009 N/FR 101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §1 01 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. In order for a method to be considered a "process" under § 101, a claimed process must either: (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943,88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(e) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (U.S.Pub 2005/0192838) 1. Claims 2, 5-8,11,17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (U.S. Pub 2005/0192838) in view of Evans (Patent 5924074). 2. Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (U.S. Pub 2005/0192838) in view of Haller (U.S. Pub 2002/0013613). Claims 21 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. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parkerv. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972);
9 US20060058618A1 3/16/2006 8/15/2005 12/31/2008 FR 101 and 103 rejections 1. Claims 6 and 10- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 2. Claim(s) 20 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention (In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) N/A Claims 6, 10-14 and 20 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsujino et ai., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0171668 published on Sep. 11, 2003 ("Tsujino"). N/A Diamond v. Diehr, 450 u.s. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-88 (1876)) and recent Federal Circuit decisions (In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
10 US20070066889A1 3/22/2007 9/21/2006 4/15/2009 N/FR 101, 103 and 112 rejections Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility N/A Claims 16-30 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,944,022 to Nardella et a1 in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,594,521 to Tucker in further view of U.S. Patent No. 6,298,261 to Rex Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. N/A
11 US20070055142A1 3/8/2007 3/14/2003 1/7/2009 FR 101, 103 and 112 rejections Claims 1-8, 10-1 1, 13-1 6, 31 -38, 40-41, 43-46, 67, 69-70, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. N/A Claims 1-8, 10-1 1, 13-25, 31 -38, 40-41, 43-54, 60-67, 69-70, 72-83, 89, 91 -94 and 99-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rasche (US 6,473,635). Claims 8, 10-1 1, 13-1 6, 38, 40-41, 43-46, 67, 69-70, 72-75, 89, and 91 -94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. N/A
12 US20060281997A1 12/14/2006 6/6/2006 3/6/2009 FR 103 and 112 rejections N/A N/A Claim(s) 1 - 12, 14, 17 - 20, 22 - 25, 28 - 52, and 54 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boileau et al. (US 200410267321, herein
Boileau). 		Claim(s) 1, 18, 22, 29, 31, 38, 41, 48 - 55, 60, and 62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. N/A
13 US20060264740A1 11/23/2006 2/3/2006 11/14/2008 N/FR 101 and 103 rejections Claims 15-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. N/A Claims 1-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kendrick et al. (US PG Pub 200310206614 Al) in view of Blumhofer et al. (US Patent 6,865,253). N/A N/A
14 US20060253015A1 11/9/2006 6/6/2005 3/19/2009 FR 101 and 102 rejections Claims 1-9, 18-28 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter Claims 33 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Speier et al (US 2003/0020473) N/A N/A N/A
15 US20060240393A1 10/26/2006 12/19/2005 1/26/2009 N/FR 101, 102 and 103 rejections Claims 6- 18 are rejected under USC 10 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Calhoun et al. (US 6,280,198 Bl) Claims 4, 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Calhoun et al. (US 6,280,198 B1) in view of Borsuk (US 5,475,399).Re claim 4, Calhoun does not explicitly teach of said output device includes a display that displays textual information and each program module includes computer readable instructions for adjusting font of textual information. N/A In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478,481 (CCPA 195 1).
16 US20060235280A1 10/19/2006 11/19/2004 3/2/2009 N/FR 101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Claims 16-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Lavin et al. (US 5,772,585). Claim I , 4-7 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,772,585 to Lavin et al. in view of US Patent 6,108,635 to Herren et al. Claims 1-15 and 31 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. N/A
17 US20060217623A1 9/28/2006 6/9/2006 11/25/2008 N/FR 101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections Claims 1-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter Claims 1-4, 12-1 4, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Morganroth et al. ("How to obtain and Analyze Electrocardiograms in Clinical Trials" hereinafter referred to as the Morganroth publication). Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
Morganroth publication. 		Claims 14 and 16 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 N/A
18 US20060069321A1 3/30/2006 9/30/2004 12/15/2008 N/FR 101 and 112 rejections Claims 1-5, 8-1 7, 19-21, 31 -34, 36-45,47-50, 59-64, 66-74, 76-78 and 90-1 03 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well established utility. N/A N/A Claims 1-5, 8-1 7, 19-21, 31 -34, 36-45,47-50, 59-64, 66-74, 76-78 and 90-1 03 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph. N/A
19 US20060069317A1 3/30/2006 9/27/2005 2/25/2009 FR 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Chen et al. ("Chen") P S 7,319,781 B2]. Claims 5,15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. ("Chen") P S 7,319,781 B2] in view of Medscape Gastroenterology [NPL document titled, "A Mosaic Pattern of the Descending Duodenum"]. N/A N/A
20 US20060063987A1 3/23/2006 8/25/2005 12/24/2008 N/FR 101 and 103 rejections Claims 1-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 since the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter; listed method claims do not transform subject matter to a different state. The methods are also not tied to another statutory class. N/A Claims I, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and I I are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 6,622,032) in view of Shaw et. al article (Infrared Spectroscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . , 1996 The American Physiological society). N/A N/A
21 US20060058629A1 3/16/2006 5/25/2005 2/3/2009 N/FR 101 rejection Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 5 defines a computer usable medium embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., a computer program or computer executable code) N/A N/A N/A N/A
22 US20060058622A1 3/16/2006 8/24/2005 2/17/2009 N/FR 101, 102 and 103 rejections Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A "software arrangement" is not considered statutory subject matter. Appropriate correction is required Claims I , 2, 4, 7, 9-12, 27-34, 36, 38, 39, 54-57, and 64-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Chin et al. (U.S. 4,998,972). Claims 8 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chin et al. Claims 3,23, 37 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chin et al. in view of Tashiro (U.S. 4,827,907). N/A N/A
Retrieved from "https://www.dolcera.com/wiki/index.php?title=101_rejections_of_Diagnostic_Patents(Date_of_Rejections_After_October-30-2008)&oldid=5774"