Difference between revisions of "Bilski Diagnostic Methods Big Sample Sheet-1"

From DolceraWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Section 2)
 
Line 313: Line 313:
  
 
== Section 2 ==
 
== Section 2 ==
 +
{|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">'''31'''</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">'''32'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080171949 
 +
|align = "center"|3/23/2009
 +
|align = "center"|1/18/2007
 +
|N/A
 +
|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">'''33'''</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">'''34'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080166031 
 +
|align = "center"|8/21/2008
 +
|align = "center"|3/14/2008
 +
|101, 102 and 103 rejections
 +
|Claims I , 2 and 23are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims I , 3 and 43 of copending Application No. 10/873,660 in view of Moriyama et a/. (U.S. Publication number 2004/0086163A1)
 +
|Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Moriyama et a/., "Moriyama" (U.S. Publication number 2004/0086163A1)
 +
|Claims 6, 11, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriyama as applied to claim 1 above in view of (Nonlinear Dynamics Ltd., TotalLab Applications, image analysis software for ID, electrophoresis gels, blots and colonies, www.nonlinear.com website, published 9/21/2004 from IDS).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''35'''</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">'''36'''</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">'''37'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080161708
 +
|align = "center"|9/8/2008
 +
|align = "center"|8/4/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|1.Claims 1-3, 5-7, 22-27, 30-32 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Taha et al. (US patent 6,564,090).                                                                                                                    2. Claims 7, 9, 25, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Berger (US Patent 5,560,368).                                                                                                                                3. Claims 10-1 3 and 16-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Starobin et al. (US Patent 6,361,503).
 +
|1. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taha et al. (US patent 6,564,090) in view of Morganroth (US Pub. 20030097077).                                                                                          2. Claims 8, 28, 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taha et al. (US patent 6,564,090) in view of Millar et al. (Correlation between refractory periods.. .).                                        3. Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starobin et al. (US Patent 6,361,503) in view of Millar et al. (Correlation between refractory periods.. .).                                            4. Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starobin et al. (US Patent 6,361,503) in view of Berger (US Patent 5,560,368).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''38'''</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">'''39'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080161698
 +
|align = "center"|8/28/2008
 +
|align = "center"|1/3/2007
 +
|101, 102 and 103 rejections
 +
|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim language is drawn to method of "determining", "analyzing", and "locating" and have no tangible, useful, or concrete result, and are hence non-statutory.
 +
|Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tearney et al. (U.S. 2003/0028100 Al) hereinafter "Tearney".
 +
|Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tearney et al. (U.S. 200310028 100 Al) in view of Nordstrom et al. (U.S. 200210177777 Al).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''40'''</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">'''41'''</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">'''42'''</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
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''43'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080154122
 +
|align = "center"|1/10/2008
 +
|align = "center"|12/21/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-2 and 7-1 0, 12, 16-1 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Slager (USPN 5,771,895).
 +
|1. Claims 3, I I, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slager in view of Walczak et al. (Pub. No. 2006101 551 88).                                                                                                    2. Claims 4-5, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slager in view of Yim et al. (Pub. No. 2002101 36440) and Cohen-Solal (USPN 5,933,518).                                                    3. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slager in view of Yim and Cohen-Solal as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Kohle (Pub. No. 200410096088).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''44'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080154098
 +
|align = "center"|5/19/2008
 +
|align = "center"|12/20/2006
 +
|102 and 112 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. US Patent Number 6,569,094 B2.
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 7 and 13 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">'''45'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080146956
 +
|align = "center"|2/12/2009
 +
|align = "center"|12/17/2006
 +
|103 and 112 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|N/A
 +
|1. Claims 1,4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,171,8 1 1) in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:621-628.                                                      2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,171,8 1 1) in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:621-628, and further in view of Wong et al., Ailment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 253-257.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S.Patent 6,17 1,8 1 I), in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:62 1-628 and further in view of Aygen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060 17 1887).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                4. Claims 6, 8- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,17 1,8 1 1) in view of Meretek<nowiki>’</nowiki>s proposed BREATHTEKTM Urea Breath Test package insert for Helicobacter pylori.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S.Patent 6,17 1,8 1 1) in view of Meretek<nowiki>’</nowiki>s proposed BREATHTEKTM Urea Breath Test package insert for Helicobacter pylori, in view of Aygen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060 17 1887)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,17 1,8 1 1) in view of Meretek<nowiki>’</nowiki>s proposed BREATHTEKTM Urea Breath Test package insert for Helicobacter pylori) in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:621-628, and further in view of Wong et al., Ailment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 253-257,
 +
|Claim 1 is 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">'''46'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080146905
 +
|align = "center"|3/19/2009
 +
|align = "center"|10/4/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-4, 6-1 1, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Weinberg (US 5,519,221).
 +
|Claims 5, 12-1 8, 21 -25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weinberg (US 5,519 221) in view of Nelson et al (US 7,291,841 B2).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''47'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080146897
 +
|align = "center"|3/13/2009
 +
|align = "center"|12/7/2005
 +
|103 rejection
 +
|N/A
 +
|N/A
 +
|1. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayen et a1 (Two-dimensional near-infrared transillumination imaging of biomedical media with a chromium-doped forsterite laser. Applied Optics 37(22) p. 5327-5336. 1998), hereinafter Gayen (1998), of record, in view of Levenson et al (US Patent No. 6,750,964), hereinafter Levenson (<nowiki>’</nowiki>964).                                    2. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayen (1998) and Levenson (<nowiki>’</nowiki>964) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alfano (US Patent No. , 5,371,368), hereinafter Alfano (<nowiki>’</nowiki>368), of record.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      3. Claims 13, 16-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayen . (1998) and Levenson (<nowiki>’</nowiki>964) as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Wang et al (Ballistic 2-D Imaging Through Scattering Walls Using an Ultrafast Optical Kerr Gate. Science. 253:p. 769-771. 1991), hereinafter Wang (1991), of record.
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''48'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080139967
 +
|align = "center"|2/4/2009
 +
|align = "center"|10/18/2006
 +
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1, 5-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by United States Patent Publication 2002101 93670 (Garfield et al.).
 +
|1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States Patent Publication 2002101 93670 (Garfield et al.) as modified by United States Patent 6421558 (Huey et al.).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        2. Claims 3, 4, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-1 7, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 6663570 (Mott et al.).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          3. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5301 680 (Rosenberg).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            4. Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-1 7, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 4781 200 (Baker).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              5. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. and Mott et al. as applied to claims 3, 4, 19 and 23 above, and further in view of Baker.                                    6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5442940 (Secker et al.).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                6. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5670749 (Hon).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          7. Claims 2-4 and I I are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al.
 +
|1. Claim 8 contains the trademarksltrade names Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Zigbie, and wireless USB. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''49'''</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">'''50'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080139951 
 +
|align = "center"|11/26/2008
 +
|align = "center"|12/8/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-5, 7-9, 1 1-1 2, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Porat et al. (USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 6,277,078; hereinafter "Porat").
 +
|1. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porat et al.(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 6,277,078). Porat describes trending the cardiac flow turbulence over a time period; however, the detection of complete occlusion of the blood vessel is not specified.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                2. Claims 6 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porat et al.(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 6,277,078) in view of Benedict et al.(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 5,520,190; hereinafter<br>"Benedict").                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              3. Claims 13, 14, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porat et al.(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 6,277,078) in view of Kadhiresan(USP<nowiki> </nowiki> 5,935,081).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''51'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080139899
 +
|align = "center"|4/23/2008
 +
|align = "center"|11/2/2007
 +
|101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections
 +
|Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
 +
|Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Jacobsen et al. US Patent Number 6,198,394 (hereinafter Jacobsen).
 +
|Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. US Patent Number 6,198,394 (hereinafter Jacobsen) as applied to claim 1 above.
 +
|1. Claim 2 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. Claim 3 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.                                              3. Claim 12 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.                              4. Claim 18 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">'''52'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080139898
 +
|align = "center"|10/28/2008
 +
|align = "center"|12/7/2006
 +
|102 rejection
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-1 4, and 29-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Sunvit et al. US Patent Number 6,024,699.
 +
|N/A
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''53'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080139891
 +
|align = "center"|8/26/2008
 +
|align = "center"|10/25/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker et al. US Patent Number 6,302,844 Bl.
 +
|Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al. US Patent Number 6,302,844 Bl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang 6,758,812 B2
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''54'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080132800 
 +
|align = "center"|1/30/2009
 +
|align = "center"|11/30/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|1. Claims 1,3,4,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Denker et al (6,592,518).                                                                                                                                                                    2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Dimmer et al (2004101 38554).
 +
|1. Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Denker et al (6,592,518) in view of Chinchoy (2004101 72079).                                                                                                                    2. Claims 6-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chinchoy (2004101 72079) in view of Denker et al (6,592,518).                                                                                                            3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Denker et al (6,592,518) in view of Ben-Heim (6,285,898).                                                                                                                              4. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Denker et al (6,592,518) in view of Ben-Heim (6,285,898), and further in view of Chinchoy (2004101 72079).                                                        5. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimmer et al (2004101 38554) in view of Chinchoy (2004101 72079).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''55'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080132799
 +
|align = "center"|3/19/2009
 +
|align = "center"|11/30/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Brunner et a1 (US Patent Application Publication 2003/0004652).
 +
|1. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brunner et a1 in view of Karjalainen et a1 (Karjalainen, P. A,; Tarvainen, M. R.; Laitinen, T., "Principal Component Regression Approach for QT Variability Estimation, " Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2005. IEEE-EMBS 2005. 27th Annual International Conference, vol., no., pp. 1145-1 147, 17-18 Jan. 2006)                                                2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brunner et a1 in view of Berger (US Patent No. 5,560,368).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''56'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080132797 
 +
|align = "center"|3/6/2009
 +
|align = "center"|10/31/2007
 +
|103 rejection
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticiapated by U. S. Publication No. 200210172323 to Karellas et al.
 +
|N/A
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''57'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080132782 
 +
|align = "center"|8/20/2008
 +
|align = "center"|1/27/2005
 +
|103 rejection
 +
|N/A
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Uzgris et al. (US 6470,204 Bl) in view of Greenleaf et al. (US 2001/0053384 Al).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''58'''</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">'''59'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080119724                           
 +
|align = "center"|3/18/2009
 +
|align = "center"|11/17/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|1. Claims 1, 10-1 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by DiGioia Ill et al. (US Patent No. 5,880,976).                                                                                                                            2. Claims 1-4, 7-1 4 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mire et al. (US Pub No. 2004101 71 924).                                                                                                                        3. Claim 1, 6-7, 9-1 1, 15-1 6, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Sahay et al. (US Patent No. 5,824,085).
 +
|Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mire et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bisek et al. (US Patent No. 5,306,306)
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''60'''</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">'''61'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080119708                       
 +
|align = "center"|3/17/2009
 +
|align = "center"|10/25/2006
 +
|103 and 112 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 21 -30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 200310050546 to Desai et al in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2003101 3061 6 to Steil et al. Regarding claim 21, Desai discloses a method comprising monitoring a data stream associated with an analyte level, wherein a current signal is generated associated with the data stream.
 +
|Claims 27 and 28 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">'''62'''</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">'''63'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080119702                       
 +
|align = "center"|3/23/2009
 +
|align = "center"|10/31/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Saidara (US 200510038332).
 +
|1. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saidara in view of Peterka (US 200610004603).                                                                                                                            2. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saidara in view of Morrison (US 200610293577).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''64'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080114269                                       
 +
|align = "center"|6/24/2008
 +
|align = "center"|10/10/2007
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-6 and 9-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 6,331,893 Bl , hereinafter Brown).
 +
|Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,331,893 Bl , hereinafter Brown).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''65'''</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">'''66'''</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">'''67'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080108913         
 +
|align = "center"|11/7/2008
 +
|align = "center"|11/6/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-8, 10-1 8 and 20-25 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 Billing (applicant submitted Foreign Reference WO 200510371 03).
 +
|Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Billing as applied in claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Guan (US 200510046 1 39).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''68'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080108910         
 +
|align = "center"|12/29/2008
 +
|align = "center"|10/7/2007
 +
|102 rejection
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 22-44 are 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 Deck et al (US 200810082023).
 +
|N/A
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''69'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080108906           
 +
|align = "center"|12/24/2008
 +
|align = "center"|11/8/2006
 +
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-6, 1 1-1 3, and 18-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Albrecht et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,755,671).
 +
|Claims 7-1 0 and 14-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al.
 +
|Claims 1-1 9 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.
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''70'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080108884           
 +
|align = "center"|3/3/2009
 +
|align = "center"|9/24/2007
 +
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-5, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Smith (US Patent Number 6,980,419 B2).
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-5, 1 1, 13 and 14 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">'''71'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080108883           
 +
|align = "center"|1/8/2009
 +
|align = "center"|11/2/2007
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|1. Claims 1-6, and 9-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kiselik (US 7066896).                                                                                                                                                                2. Claims 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Shenoy et al. (US 660901 7).
 +
|1. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiselik (US 7066896) in view of Einav et al. (US 2006029361 7).                                                                                                2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiselik modified by Einav as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Brown (US 6692449).                                                                            3. Claims 14-17, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scott (US 61 55993) in view of Brown (US 6692449).                                                                                                      4. Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shenoy and Brown as applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Scott (US 61 55993).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''72'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080103416         
 +
|align = "center"|2/4/2009
 +
|align = "center"|12/17/2007
 +
|103 rejection
 +
|N/A
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-4, 7-1 1, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 5,916,179 to Sharrock ("Sharrock") in view of US Pat. No. 4,739,211 to Strachan ("Strachan").
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''73'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20080103402         
 +
|align = "center"|3/18/2009
 +
|align = "center"|10/30/2006
 +
|102 and 103 rejections
 +
|N/A
 +
|Claims 1-4, 7-1 6, 18-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Morgan (US 461 0254).
 +
|1. Claims 5, 6, 17, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 461 0254).                                                                                                                                              2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 461 0254) in view of Tamura (US 200310080712).
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''74'''</font>
 +
|align = "center"|US 20070244373         
 +
|align = "center"|4/30/2008
 +
|align = "center"|5/2/2006
 +
|101, 102 and 103 rejections
 +
|1. Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.                                                                                                                                            2. Claims 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the 101 rejection
 +
|1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 200310014742 to Lewkowicz et al.                                                          2. Claims 1-6, 8-1 0, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 200410050394 to Jin.
 +
|1. Claims I, 10, I I, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,442,413 to Silver in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 200310014742 to Lewkowicz et al.          2. Claims 7, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-1 0, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,477,406 to Turcott.          3. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewkowicz, as applied to Claims I, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,689,056 to Kilcoyne et al.
 +
|N/A
 +
|-
 +
|}

Latest revision as of 21:05, 17 April 2009

S.No. Publication No. Date of Rejection Filing date Rejection type 101 Rejection 102 Rejection 103 Rejection 112 Rejection
1 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
2 US 20080097237 4/8/2008 9/29/2006 103 and 112 rejections N/A N/A 1. Claims 1-6, 8, 29, 30, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 200410243207 to Olson et al. ("Olson") in view of US Pat. No. 5,035,247 to Heimann ("Heimann"). 2. Claims I I, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 200410198469 to Bridger et al. ("Bridger") in view of US Pat. No.5,594,638 to lliff ("Illiff’), Olson, and Heimann. 3. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bridger in view of Illiff, Olson, and Heimann as applied to claim 1 1 above, and further in view of US. Pat. No. 6,409,684 to Wilk ("Wilk"). Claims 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
3 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
4 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.
5 US 20080097196 6/5/2008 8/30/2006 102, 103 and 112 rejections N/A 1. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being unpatentable over Kalender (US Patent No. 5,301,672). 2. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being unpatentable over Chenevert et al. (US Patent No. 6,167,293). 1. Claims 1-6, 10, I I, 13, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalender (US Patent No. 5,301,672) in view of Gelman (US Patent No. 6,337,992). 2. Claims 8, 9, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalender (US Patent No. 5,301,672) in view of Gelman (US Patent No. 6,337,992) as applied to claims 7, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Brown (US Patent No. 5,459,769). 3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heuscher (US Patent No. 5,262,946). Claim 19 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.
6 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
7 US 20080097173 6/12/2008 5/30/2007 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1 - 3, 11, 16 - 19, 22, 23, 25 - 27, and 32 - 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tsuchiya. 1. Claims 4 - 10, 12 - 15, 24, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya, as applied to claims 1, 3 and 38 above. 2. Claims 20 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya as applied to claims 1 and 32 above, and further in view of Arakaki et al. 3. Claims 21, 41, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya as applied to claims 1 and 34 above, and further in view of Pologe. 4. Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pologe in view of Takatani et al. 5. Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya for the reasons given in paragraphs 2 and 4 above. N/A
8 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
9 US 20080091122 6/30/2008 11/13/2007 102 and 103 rejections N/A 1. Claims 50 - 52, 62, 64 66, 68,70,72 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,448,996 to Bellin et al. 2. Claims 47,49 - 52, 62, 64 - 68, 70, 72 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,846,206 to Bader. Claims 48 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,846,206 to Bader. N/A
10 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.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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
14 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
15 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
16 US 20080086060 8/21/2008 12/3/2007 112 rejection N/A N/A N/A 1. Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for quaternary amines, does not reasonably provide enablement for "an ion-balance reagent". 2. Claims 1-20 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.
17 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.
18 US 20080086044 9/25/2008 3/26/2007 102 and 103 rejections N/A 1. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 13-1 5, 17, 22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,128,519 to Say. 2. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, 14, 22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,335,658 to Bedingham. 1. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Say, as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 13-1 5, 17, 22, and 24-27 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,123,827 to Wong et al. Say lacks allowing a temperature of the reference solution to equilibrate with a temperature of the host. 2. Claims 9, 10, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Say, as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 13-1 5, 17, 22, and 24-27 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,976,085 to Kimball et al. 3. Claims 9-1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bedingham, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, 14, 22, and 25-27 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,976,085 to Kimball et al. 4. Claims 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,976,085 to Kimball et al. in view of US Patent No. 6,123,827 to Wong et al. 5. Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4,119,406 to Clemens in view of US Patent No. 6,123,827 to Wong et al. and US Patent No. 5,976,085 to Kimball et al.. N/A
19 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
20 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
21 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
22 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
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 20080082012 8/26/2008 9/28/2006 102 rejection N/A Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (2006101 16596) N/A N/A
26 US 20080082011 1/9/2008 9/14/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1,3 - 15, and 19 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Goodman U.S. Patent No. 6,616,613. Claims 2 and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman U.S. Patent No. 6,616,613 in view of Ranta U.S. Patent No. 7,050,798. N/A
27 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.
28 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
29 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.
30 US 20080081973 10/28/2008 9/28/2006 N/A 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.

Section 2

S.No. Publication No. Date of Rejection Filing date Rejection type 101 Rejection 102 Rejection 103 Rejection 112 Rejection
31 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
32 US 20080171949 3/23/2009 1/18/2007 N/A 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
33 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.
34 US 20080166031 8/21/2008 3/14/2008 101, 102 and 103 rejections Claims I , 2 and 23are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims I , 3 and 43 of copending Application No. 10/873,660 in view of Moriyama et a/. (U.S. Publication number 2004/0086163A1) Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Moriyama et a/., "Moriyama" (U.S. Publication number 2004/0086163A1) Claims 6, 11, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriyama as applied to claim 1 above in view of (Nonlinear Dynamics Ltd., TotalLab Applications, image analysis software for ID, electrophoresis gels, blots and colonies, www.nonlinear.com website, published 9/21/2004 from IDS). N/A
35 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
36 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
37 US 20080161708 9/8/2008 8/4/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A 1.Claims 1-3, 5-7, 22-27, 30-32 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Taha et al. (US patent 6,564,090). 2. Claims 7, 9, 25, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Berger (US Patent 5,560,368). 3. Claims 10-1 3 and 16-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Starobin et al. (US Patent 6,361,503). 1. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taha et al. (US patent 6,564,090) in view of Morganroth (US Pub. 20030097077). 2. Claims 8, 28, 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taha et al. (US patent 6,564,090) in view of Millar et al. (Correlation between refractory periods.. .). 3. Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starobin et al. (US Patent 6,361,503) in view of Millar et al. (Correlation between refractory periods.. .). 4. Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starobin et al. (US Patent 6,361,503) in view of Berger (US Patent 5,560,368). N/A
38 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.
39 US 20080161698 8/28/2008 1/3/2007 101, 102 and 103 rejections Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim language is drawn to method of "determining", "analyzing", and "locating" and have no tangible, useful, or concrete result, and are hence non-statutory. Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tearney et al. (U.S. 2003/0028100 Al) hereinafter "Tearney". Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tearney et al. (U.S. 200310028 100 Al) in view of Nordstrom et al. (U.S. 200210177777 Al). N/A
40 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
41 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
42 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
43 US 20080154122 1/10/2008 12/21/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-2 and 7-1 0, 12, 16-1 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Slager (USPN 5,771,895). 1. Claims 3, I I, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slager in view of Walczak et al. (Pub. No. 2006101 551 88). 2. Claims 4-5, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slager in view of Yim et al. (Pub. No. 2002101 36440) and Cohen-Solal (USPN 5,933,518). 3. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slager in view of Yim and Cohen-Solal as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Kohle (Pub. No. 200410096088). N/A
44 US 20080154098 5/19/2008 12/20/2006 102 and 112 rejections N/A Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. US Patent Number 6,569,094 B2. N/A Claims 7 and 13 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.
45 US 20080146956 2/12/2009 12/17/2006 103 and 112 rejections N/A N/A 1. Claims 1,4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,171,8 1 1) in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:621-628. 2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,171,8 1 1) in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:621-628, and further in view of Wong et al., Ailment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 253-257. 3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S.Patent 6,17 1,8 1 I), in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:62 1-628 and further in view of Aygen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060 17 1887). 4. Claims 6, 8- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,17 1,8 1 1) in view of Meretek’s proposed BREATHTEKTM Urea Breath Test package insert for Helicobacter pylori. 5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S.Patent 6,17 1,8 1 1) in view of Meretek’s proposed BREATHTEKTM Urea Breath Test package insert for Helicobacter pylori, in view of Aygen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060 17 1887) 6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallejo (U.S. Patent 6,17 1,8 1 1) in view of Meretek’s proposed BREATHTEKTM Urea Breath Test package insert for Helicobacter pylori) in view of Ohara et al., Journal of Gastroenterology 2004: 39:621-628, and further in view of Wong et al., Ailment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 253-257, Claim 1 is 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.
46 US 20080146905 3/19/2009 10/4/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-4, 6-1 1, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Weinberg (US 5,519,221). Claims 5, 12-1 8, 21 -25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weinberg (US 5,519 221) in view of Nelson et al (US 7,291,841 B2). N/A
47 US 20080146897 3/13/2009 12/7/2005 103 rejection N/A N/A 1. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayen et a1 (Two-dimensional near-infrared transillumination imaging of biomedical media with a chromium-doped forsterite laser. Applied Optics 37(22) p. 5327-5336. 1998), hereinafter Gayen (1998), of record, in view of Levenson et al (US Patent No. 6,750,964), hereinafter Levenson (’964). 2. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayen (1998) and Levenson (’964) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alfano (US Patent No. , 5,371,368), hereinafter Alfano (’368), of record. 3. Claims 13, 16-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayen . (1998) and Levenson (’964) as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Wang et al (Ballistic 2-D Imaging Through Scattering Walls Using an Ultrafast Optical Kerr Gate. Science. 253:p. 769-771. 1991), hereinafter Wang (1991), of record. N/A
48 US 20080139967 2/4/2009 10/18/2006 102, 103 and 112 rejections N/A Claims 1, 5-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by United States Patent Publication 2002101 93670 (Garfield et al.). 1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States Patent Publication 2002101 93670 (Garfield et al.) as modified by United States Patent 6421558 (Huey et al.). 2. Claims 3, 4, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-1 7, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 6663570 (Mott et al.). 3. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5301 680 (Rosenberg). 4. Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-1 7, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 4781 200 (Baker). 5. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. and Mott et al. as applied to claims 3, 4, 19 and 23 above, and further in view of Baker. 6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5442940 (Secker et al.). 6. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. as modified by Huey et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17, 20, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5670749 (Hon). 7. Claims 2-4 and I I are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garfield et al. 1. Claim 8 contains the trademarksltrade names Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Zigbie, and wireless USB. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
49 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
50 US 20080139951 11/26/2008 12/8/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-5, 7-9, 1 1-1 2, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Porat et al. (USP 6,277,078; hereinafter "Porat"). 1. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porat et al.(USP 6,277,078). Porat describes trending the cardiac flow turbulence over a time period; however, the detection of complete occlusion of the blood vessel is not specified. 2. Claims 6 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porat et al.(USP 6,277,078) in view of Benedict et al.(USP 5,520,190; hereinafter
"Benedict"). 3. Claims 13, 14, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porat et al.(USP 6,277,078) in view of Kadhiresan(USP 5,935,081). 		N/A
51 US 20080139899 4/23/2008 11/2/2007 101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Jacobsen et al. US Patent Number 6,198,394 (hereinafter Jacobsen). Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. US Patent Number 6,198,394 (hereinafter Jacobsen) as applied to claim 1 above. 1. Claim 2 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. Claim 3 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. 3. Claim 12 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. 4. Claim 18 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.
52 US 20080139898 10/28/2008 12/7/2006 102 rejection N/A Claims 1-1 4, and 29-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Sunvit et al. US Patent Number 6,024,699. N/A N/A
53 US 20080139891 8/26/2008 10/25/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker et al. US Patent Number 6,302,844 Bl. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al. US Patent Number 6,302,844 Bl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang 6,758,812 B2 N/A
54 US 20080132800 1/30/2009 11/30/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A 1. Claims 1,3,4,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Denker et al (6,592,518). 2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Dimmer et al (2004101 38554). 1. Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Denker et al (6,592,518) in view of Chinchoy (2004101 72079). 2. Claims 6-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chinchoy (2004101 72079) in view of Denker et al (6,592,518). 3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Denker et al (6,592,518) in view of Ben-Heim (6,285,898). 4. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Denker et al (6,592,518) in view of Ben-Heim (6,285,898), and further in view of Chinchoy (2004101 72079). 5. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimmer et al (2004101 38554) in view of Chinchoy (2004101 72079). N/A
55 US 20080132799 3/19/2009 11/30/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Brunner et a1 (US Patent Application Publication 2003/0004652). 1. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brunner et a1 in view of Karjalainen et a1 (Karjalainen, P. A,; Tarvainen, M. R.; Laitinen, T., "Principal Component Regression Approach for QT Variability Estimation, " Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2005. IEEE-EMBS 2005. 27th Annual International Conference, vol., no., pp. 1145-1 147, 17-18 Jan. 2006) 2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brunner et a1 in view of Berger (US Patent No. 5,560,368). N/A
56 US 20080132797 3/6/2009 10/31/2007 103 rejection N/A Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticiapated by U. S. Publication No. 200210172323 to Karellas et al. N/A N/A
57 US 20080132782 8/20/2008 1/27/2005 103 rejection N/A N/A Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Uzgris et al. (US 6470,204 Bl) in view of Greenleaf et al. (US 2001/0053384 Al). N/A
58 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.
59 US 20080119724 3/18/2009 11/17/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A 1. Claims 1, 10-1 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by DiGioia Ill et al. (US Patent No. 5,880,976). 2. Claims 1-4, 7-1 4 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mire et al. (US Pub No. 2004101 71 924). 3. Claim 1, 6-7, 9-1 1, 15-1 6, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Sahay et al. (US Patent No. 5,824,085). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mire et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bisek et al. (US Patent No. 5,306,306) N/A
60 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
61 US 20080119708 3/17/2009 10/25/2006 103 and 112 rejections N/A N/A Claims 21 -30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 200310050546 to Desai et al in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2003101 3061 6 to Steil et al. Regarding claim 21, Desai discloses a method comprising monitoring a data stream associated with an analyte level, wherein a current signal is generated associated with the data stream. Claims 27 and 28 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.
62 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.
63 US 20080119702 3/23/2009 10/31/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Saidara (US 200510038332). 1. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saidara in view of Peterka (US 200610004603). 2. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saidara in view of Morrison (US 200610293577). N/A
64 US 20080114269 6/24/2008 10/10/2007 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-6 and 9-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 6,331,893 Bl , hereinafter Brown). Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,331,893 Bl , hereinafter Brown). N/A
65 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
66 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
67 US 20080108913 11/7/2008 11/6/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-8, 10-1 8 and 20-25 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 Billing (applicant submitted Foreign Reference WO 200510371 03). Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Billing as applied in claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Guan (US 200510046 1 39). N/A
68 US 20080108910 12/29/2008 10/7/2007 102 rejection N/A Claims 22-44 are 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 Deck et al (US 200810082023). N/A N/A
69 US 20080108906 12/24/2008 11/8/2006 102, 103 and 112 rejections N/A Claims 1-6, 1 1-1 3, and 18-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Albrecht et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,755,671). Claims 7-1 0 and 14-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al. Claims 1-1 9 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.
70 US 20080108884 3/3/2009 9/24/2007 102, 103 and 112 rejections N/A Claims 1-5, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Smith (US Patent Number 6,980,419 B2). N/A Claims 1-5, 1 1, 13 and 14 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.
71 US 20080108883 1/8/2009 11/2/2007 102 and 103 rejections N/A 1. Claims 1-6, and 9-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kiselik (US 7066896). 2. Claims 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Shenoy et al. (US 660901 7). 1. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiselik (US 7066896) in view of Einav et al. (US 2006029361 7). 2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiselik modified by Einav as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Brown (US 6692449). 3. Claims 14-17, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scott (US 61 55993) in view of Brown (US 6692449). 4. Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shenoy and Brown as applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Scott (US 61 55993). N/A
72 US 20080103416 2/4/2009 12/17/2007 103 rejection N/A N/A Claims 1-4, 7-1 1, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 5,916,179 to Sharrock ("Sharrock") in view of US Pat. No. 4,739,211 to Strachan ("Strachan"). N/A
73 US 20080103402 3/18/2009 10/30/2006 102 and 103 rejections N/A Claims 1-4, 7-1 6, 18-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Morgan (US 461 0254). 1. Claims 5, 6, 17, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 461 0254). 2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 461 0254) in view of Tamura (US 200310080712). N/A
74 US 20070244373 4/30/2008 5/2/2006 101, 102 and 103 rejections 1. Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 2. Claims 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the 101 rejection 1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 200310014742 to Lewkowicz et al. 2. Claims 1-6, 8-1 0, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 200410050394 to Jin. 1. Claims I, 10, I I, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,442,413 to Silver in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 200310014742 to Lewkowicz et al. 2. Claims 7, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-1 0, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,477,406 to Turcott. 3. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewkowicz, as applied to Claims I, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,689,056 to Kilcoyne et al. N/A
Retrieved from "https://www.dolcera.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bilski_Diagnostic_Methods_Big_Sample_Sheet-1&oldid=5567"