| Sl.No. | Patent/Publication No. | Application Date | Date of Publication | Date of rejection | FR or N/FR | Rejection type | 101 Rejection | 102 Rejection | 103 Rejection | 112 rejection |
| 1 | US20060094954A1 | 1/21/2005 | 5/4/2006 | 2/17/2009 | N/FR | 101 and 102 rejections | Claims 1-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. | Claims 1-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Vining et al. (678541 0). | N/A | N/A |
| 2 | US20040078241A1 | 10/7/2003 | 4/22/2004 | 2/13/2009 | FR | 101, 102 and 103 rejections | Claims 10 and 1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 based on Supreme Court precedent, and recent Federal Circuit decisions, a 5 101 process must (1) be tied to a particular machine (such as a particular apparatus) or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials) to a different state or thing. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,787-88 (1876). The process steps in claims (10 and 11) are not tied to a particular apparatus nor do they execute a transformation. Thus, they are non-statutory. | Claims 1-5, 8-13,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Campbell et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,047,259. | Claims 1-5, 8-13,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campbell et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,047,259 in view of Oon, U.S. Patent Number 7,321,861. | N/A |
| 3 | US20040176679A1 | 3/15/2004 | 9/9/2004 | 12/12/2008 | FR | 101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections | Claims 92, 521-546 and 573-598 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 92, 521-546 and 573-598 defines a carrier medium embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., a computer program or computer executable code). | Claims 91, 92, 495-503, 505-509, 511-513, 515-518, 521-529, 531-535, 537-539, 541-544, 547-555, 557-561, 563-565, 567-570, 573-581, 583-587, 589-591 and 593-596 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Halmann et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,151,856. | Claims 504, 510, 514, 519, 530, 536, 540, 545, 556, 562, 566, 571, 582, 588, 592 and 597 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Halmann et al., U.S. Patent No.5,151,856 | Claims 504, 506, 507, 530, 532, 533, 556, 558, 559, 582, 584 and 585 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. |
| 4 | US20060031022A1 | 10/4/2005 | 2/9/2006 | 12/16/2008 | N/FR | 101, 102 and 112 | Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. | Claims 1-1 1, 13-16,20,22-24,45, and 64-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(l) as being anticipated by Levinson et al. (US 200210 177 167). | N/A | Claims 1-20,22-24,45, and 64-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. |
| 5 | US20060084847A1 | 11/30/2005 | 4/20/2006 | 11/25/2008 | FR | 101 and 102 rejections | 1. Claim 19 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,001,334 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 6,524,239. 2. Claim 1 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,001,334 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 6,524,239 in view of Mazar et al. US Patent Publication No 200410122489. | 1. Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Jacobsen et al. US Patent Publication Number 6,198,394. 2. Claims 1-3 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mazar et al. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489. 2. Claims 4-1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mazar et al. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kehr et al. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489. |
N/A | N/A |
| 6 | US20030195770A1 | 6/4/2002 | 10/16/2003 | 1/12/2009 | FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Davies et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2003/0046114). | 1. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies et al. in view of Pestotnik et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0260666). 2. Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies et al. in view of Pestotnik et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0260666). |
N/A |
| 7 | US20040078219A1 | 10/21/2002 | 4/22/2004 | 12/19/2008 | FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | 1. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21-25, 29-38 and 45-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Knapp USPN 6, 278,999 2. Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-19, 21-38, and 45-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Alleckson et al. US Publication Number US 200610064323 Al. | Claims 12, 13, 15, 17 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knapp as applied to claims 1, 12, 14 and 25 above, and further in view of Walker et al. USPN 6,302,844 (Hereinafter Walker). | N/A |
| 8 | US20050004476A1 | 5/28/2004 | 1/6/2005 | 10/3/2008 | FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | 1. Claims 39 & 41-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2003101 67081 ) in view of Zhu et al. (US 200310220582). 2. Claims 51-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (’081) in view of Zhu et al. (’582), and further in view of Jensen et al. (US 6,752,765). |
N/A |
| 9 | US20050080322A1 | 8/16/2004 | 4/14/2005 | 11/13/2008 | FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | 1. Claims 1-8, 11-17, 19-22,24-26,28-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being unpatentable over US Patent Number Mault US Patent Number 6,478,736 B1 in view of Haller 200210052539. 2. Claims 1-4,7,11-16,19,22,24,25,28,29,33-34,36-40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Heinonen et al. US Patent Number 5,772,586. 3. Claims 1-7,ll-13,15,16,19-22,24,25,28-30,33-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Increa Oy WO 01l15056. 4. Claims 1-8,ll-17,19-22,24-26,28-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Number Mault US Patent Number 6,478,736 B1. | 1. Claims 1-4,7, 11-16, 19,22,24,25,28,29,33-34,36-40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinonen et al. US Patent Number 5,772,586 in view of Haller 200210052539. 2. Claims 5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinonen et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Increa Oy WO01115056. 3. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Increa Oy WO0 111 5056 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of DeLuca et al. US Patent Number 6,238,338 B1. 4. Claims 23,27, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Increa Oy WO 0 111 5056 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Echerer US Patent Number 5,801,755 A and Thomason US Patent Number 6,3 17,039 Bl. | N/A |
| 10 | US20050090372A1 | 6/24/2004 | 4/28/2005 | 12/23/2008 | N/FR | 103 and 112 rejections | N/A | N/A | Claims 20 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luce et al. U.S. PGPub No. 200310163353. | Claims 20 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. |
| 11 | US20060100533A1 | 11/7/2005 | 5/11/2006 | 10/30/2008 | N/FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims I, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by lwabuchi et al. (US Patent 6,327,495 B1) | Claims 2, 4, 8 and 10-1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over lwabuchi et al. (US Patent 6,327,495 Bl) in view of Smith et al. (US 2004101 71 961 A1 ). | N/A |
| 12 | US20060178595A1 | 12/13/2005 | 8/10/2006 | 2/27/2009 | FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | 1. Claims I, 4, 6-14, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) in view of Anaesthesia (2002). 2. Claims 15, 17-1 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) in view of Anaesthesia (2002) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radar Chart 2002). 3. Claims 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) as modified by Anaesthesia (2002) and Radar Chart (2002) as applied to claims 17 and 21 above, and further in view of Maurer et al. (US 5,873,900). 4. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) as modified by Anaesthesia (2002), Radar Chart (2002), and Maurer Maurer et al. (US 5,873,900) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kaplan (US 4,438,130). | N/A |
| 13 | US20060235315A1 | 3/18/2005 | 10/19/2006 | 2/24/2009 | N/FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | 1. Claims 1-20, 28-80 and 96-1 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Verrier et al (US 5,902,250) in view of Verrier et al (US 5,265,617). 2. Claims 21 -27 and 81 -95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geva et al (US 200410073098). | N/A |
| 14 | US20060253097A1 | 10/21/2005 | 11/9/2006 | 12/22/2008 | N/FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | 1. Claims 1-1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault (US 2003102081 13) in view of Mauro (US 5957841). 2. Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mault in view of Sterling (US 2005100361 47). | N/A |
| 15 | US20030191406A1 | 5/13/2003 | 10/9/2003 | 8/27/2004 | N/FR | 101 and 112 rejections | Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 6,561,992. This is a double patenting rejection. | N/A | N/A | Claims 2, 12- 14 and 20 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. |
| 16 | US20050240112A1 | 6/22/2005 | 10/27/2005 | 9/20/2007 | N/FR | 101, 102 and 103 rejections | 1. Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention, despite a slight difference in wording, as that of claims 42-51 of prior U.S. Patent No. 6,936,010. This is a double patenting rejection. 2. Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 42-51 of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,010. | Claims 1-6,ll-14, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (5,509,425). | Claims 7-10,15-16, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpat Feng et al. (US 5,509,425) in view of Oriol et al. (US 5,596,993). | N/A |
| 17 | US20040097814A1 | 12/9/2003 | 5/20/2004 | 4/13/2007 | FR | 101 rejection | Claims 8-27, 33, 38-40, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 18 | US20050251054A1 | 5/10/2004 | 11/10/2005 | 11/16/2006 | N/FR | 101, 102 and 103 rejections | Claims 1-34 and 45-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. | Claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 13-18, 20, 24, 26-30, 46-51, 55-59, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Risk et al 6416473. | 1. Claims 4, 25, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et a16416473 in view of Hampton 6875418. 2. Claims 8, 9, 19, 32, 33, 54, 63, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et al 6416473 in view of Eisenberg et al 54921 17. 3. Claims 11, 12, 31, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et al6416473. 4. Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et al 6416473 in view of Sarma et al 5419338 and Malik et al 6438409. 5. Claims 23, 34, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Risk et a1 in view of Lerner 6490480. | N/A |
| 19 | US20060089548A1 | 10/19/2005 | 4/27/2006 | 8/28/2006 | N/FR | 101 and 112 rejections | Claim 43 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. | N/A | N/A | Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. |
| 20 | US20030176773A1 | 3/12/2002 | 9/18/2003 | 5/23/2005 | FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1 - 1 1, 13, and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Progress in Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128. | 1. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Progress in Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and hrther in view of Gracely et al., "A Multiple Random Staircase Method of Psychological Pain Assessment", (cited by applicant). 2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Progress in Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128. |
N/A |
| 21 | US20030181818A1 | 3/25/2002 | 9/25/2003 | 11/1/2005 | FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Arand et al. (5,8 17,027). | Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10,27-34,36,38 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Kim et al. (6,708,058) in view of Arand et al. (5,817,027). | N/A |
| 22 | US20030216627A1 | 3/7/2003 | 11/20/2003 | 3/15/2005 | N/FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1-6, l0,20-21,35-40,44, 54-55,69-74, 78, and 88-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1.02(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,115,673 to Malin et al. | Claims 25-27, 59-61, and 93-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being & unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,115,673 to Malin et al. | N/A |
| 23 | US20030223905A1 | 3/26/2003 | 12/4/2003 | 6/11/2007 | FR | 103 and 112 rejections | N/A | N/A | Claims I, 5-12 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Fritz (USP 5,260,219). | Claims 4-12 and 22-24 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. |
| 24 | US20030233031A1 | 12/6/2002 | 12/18/2003 | 3/5/2004 | N/FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | 1. Claims 1-9, 13-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Doi et al. US Patent 6,22 1,009 B 1. 2. Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 3 5 U. S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tavori US Patent Number 5,724,025 A. | Claims 10-1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doi et al. in view of Lloyd et al. US Patent Number 6,080,106 A. | N/A |
| 25 | US20030235817A1 | 3/21/2003 | 12/25/2003 | 5/11/2007 | FR | 102 rejection | N/A | Claims 52-56, 88,105-107, and 109-1 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cygnus, Inc. (WO 031000127, reference AB-6 in the information disclosure, statement filed 28 July 2003. | N/A | N/A |
| 26 | US20040003670A1 | 7/2/2002 | 1/8/2004 | 8/10/2004 | N/FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | Claims 28-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States Patent 5,795,574 to Breton et al. in view of United States Patent 6,267,842 to Ona et al. and "Sensory Testing Methodsn to Chambers, IV et al |
N/A |
| 27 | US20040024296A1 | 8/8/2003 | 2/5/2004 | 5/18/2005 | N/FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1-3, 10-1 1, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by PCT Application Publication W019715229 to Cytometrics, Inc. (Cytometrics)(cited by Applicant). | Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over PCT Application Publication W019715229 to Cytometrics, Inc. (Cytometrics)(cited by Applicant) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,987,094 to Clarke et al. (Clarke). | N/A |
| 28 | US20040030582A1 | 8/6/2003 | 2/12/2004 | 10/28/2004 | N/FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | Claims 1,4-10,21-24, 27-31, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over W098159487 in view of Peifer et al (US598751 9). | N/A |
| 29 | US20040075433A1 | 10/18/2002 | 4/22/2004 | 3/25/2004 | N/FR | 102 and 112 rejections | N/A | Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al. P.N. 6,058,322 (Nishikawa). | N/A | Claims 24-28 and 30 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. |
| 30 | US20040133094A1 | 10/24/2003 | 7/8/2004 | 6/11/2008 | N/FR | 102 rejection | N/A | Claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Acharya et al. (6922462). | N/A | N/A |
| 31 | US20040170304A1 | 2/28/2003 | 9/2/2004 | 12/28/2006 | FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, I I , 16, 19-22, 24, 27, 30, 32, 35-38, 40, 42, 44-45, 47, and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (U.S. Patent 6,082,858) in view of the article, "Effectiveness of Pupil Area Detection Technique using Two Light Sources and Image Difference Method", by Yoshinobu Ebisawa and Shin-ichi Satoh. | N/A |
| 32 | US20040176697A1 | 11/3/2003 | 9/9/2004 | 3/24/2005 | N/FR | 102, 103 and 112 rejections | N/A | Claims 1-3, 15, 17-1 9 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Prezas et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,616,659). |
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chamoun (U.S. Patent No. 5,020,540) as applied to claimsl-3, 15, 17-19 and 21-23 above, and further in view of Prezas et al. (U.S. 4,616,659). | Claims 11-13 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. |
| 33 | US20040181260A1 | 3/11/2004 | 9/16/2004 | 8/30/2006 | N/FR | 102, 103 and 112 rejections | N/A | Claims 1-8,14,15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102@) as being anticipated by Binder (US 6,174,289). | Claims 9-11,16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Binder (US 6,174,289) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Tockrnan et al. (US 5,540,727). | Claims 14-16, and 18 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 | US20040249778A1 | 4/16/2004 | 12/9/2004 | 3/8/2006 | N/FR | 103 and 112 rejections | N/A | N/A | Claims 1 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Altman et al, U.S. Pat. No. 557242 1 in view of Brill, U.S. Pat. No. 5435324. | Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. |
| 35 | US20040260178A1 | 6/23/2003 | 12/23/2004 | 11/15/2005 | N/FR | 102 and 112 rejections | N/A | 1.Claims I , 4 - 5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Sun et al (US681 1536 82) 2. Claims I , 4 - 5, 7 - 10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kane et a 1 (US6273854 Bl) 3. Claims 1-2, 4-1 3 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Guracar et al (US6464640 Bl) | N/A | Claim 42 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 |
| 36 | US20040267101A1 | 1/12/2004 | 12/30/2004 | 7/25/2005 | FR | 102 and 112 rejections | N/A | Claims 1 - 3, 5 - 8, and 13 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barkenhagen. | N/A | 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 |
| 37 | US20050075542A1 | 6/18/2003 | 4/7/2005 | 1/24/2008 | FR | 102, 103 and 112 rejections | N/A | 1. Claims 63,113,114,117,118,119, and 120 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ark et al. US Patent Number 6,190,314 B1. 2. Claims 63, 113 and 114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Alyfuku et al. US Patent Number 5,410,471 A. | Claims 115 and 116 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ark et al. US Patent Number 6,190,314 B1 as applied to claims 113 and 114 above, and further in view of ~oodmanU S Patent Number 6,616,613 B1 (previously cited by Examiner in Office Action 0504-1 1232004). | Claim(s) 63, and 113-120 are rejectedunder 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. |
| 38 | US20050256389A1 | 5/17/2005 | 11/17/2005 | 2/13/2008 | FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | 1. Claims 1-1 5, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Delp et al (US 5,871,018) in view of Krause et al (US 6,701 ,I 74 BI). 2. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Delp et al in view of Krause as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nieuweboer (4,081,686). | N/A |
| 39 | US20050256689A1 | 5/13/2004 | 11/17/2005 | 7/2/2007 | N/FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1-9, 13, 18-19, 25, 31-35, 39, 42-44,48-53, 55-59, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Shechtman et al. (USPN 6524260). | Claims 10-12, 14,40-41, and 60-62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shechtman et al. (USPN 6524260). | N/A |
| 40 | US20060017576A1 | 10/29/2004 | 1/26/2006 | 7/25/2006 | N/FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1 4, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (e) as being anticipated by Linder (US 6681003). | 1. Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Linder in view of Thong (US 7076299). 2. Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Linder in view of Humbard (2003/0210147). 3. Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Linder in view of Ericson (US 6533733). 4. Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Linder. 5. Claims 29-31 and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Humbard. 6. Claims 33-37, 39-43 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Humbard in view of Thong. | N/A |
| 41 | US20060020197A1 | 7/9/2004 | 1/26/2006 | 5/30/2008 | FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1, 15-16,19-20,30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being unpatentable over Wedeen (U.S. 2002/0042569 Al) in view of Hanawa et al. (U.S. 6,023,634). | 1. Claims 2-4,5-11,17-18,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wedeen (U.S. 200210042569 Al) in view of Hanawa et al. (U.S. 6,023,634), in further view of Lin et al. (NPL Article - V). 2. Claims 12-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wedeen (U.S. 200210042569 Al) in view of Hanawa et al. (U.S. 6,023,634), in further view of Hanyu et al. (NPL Article - U). 3. Claims 22-27,29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wedeen (U.S. 200210042569 Al) in view of Hanawa et al. (U.S. 6,023,634), in further view of Jenkins et al. (U.S. Patent No.:6,321,105). | N/A |
| 42 | US20060020223A1 | 7/20/2004 | 1/26/2006 | 5/23/2008 | FR | 102, 103 and 112 rejections | N/A | Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-17, 19-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Galloway et al. (US 200410087838) | 1. Claims I, 5-14 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 4,940,060) in view of Toomim et al. (US 5,505,208) and lliff (US 5,935,060). 2. Claims 2, 3, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 4,940,060) as modified by Toomim et al. (US 5,505,208) and lliff (US 5,935,060), as applied to claims I, 5-14 and 17-26 above, and further in view of Masopust (US 5,339,827). | Claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. |
| 43 | US20060052717A1 | 8/31/2005 | 3/9/2006 | 2/12/2008 | FR | 102 rejection | N/A | Claims 1-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Linh ("On-line Heart Beat Recognition Using Hermite Polynomials and Neuro-Fuzzy Network"). | N/A | N/A |
| 44 | US20060085048A1 | 10/19/2005 | 4/20/2006 | 9/17/2008 | N/FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | 1. Claims 1-12, 14-27, 29-45, 47-51, 57-62, 64, 66-68 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Pearlman (U.S. Pat. 5,810,742). 2. Claims 1-1 2, 14-32, 34-45, 47-57, 59-64, 66-68 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cory et al. (U.S. Pub. 200310009111 hereinafter "Cory"). | Claims 13, 46 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearlman andlor Cory. | N/A |
| 45 | US20060112754A1 | 7/11/2005 | 6/1/2006 | 6/4/2007 | N/FR | 101, 102 and 103 rejections | Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. | 1. Claims I , 3, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a and e) as being anticipated by Carlson et al US-2003101 22663. 2. Claims I , 3, 8 and 10-1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mohri US 200210012014. | Claims 7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson et all Mohri, or Shibaskai. | N/A |
| 46 | US20060206019A1 | 12/22/2005 | 9/14/2006 | 6/17/2008 | N/FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hersh et a1.’63 1 (USPN 4,807,63 1). | Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hersh et a1.’631, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Baker, Jr et a1.’364 (USPN 5,853,364), further in view of Baker, Jr.’847 (USPN 5,485,847). | N/A |
| 47 | US20060241510A1 | 8/3/2005 | 10/26/2006 | 6/4/2007 | N/FR | 102 rejection | N/A | Claims 56-58, 61 -63, 65, 67-73, 75, 105-1 07, 109-1 15, 139-141, 144-146, 148, 150-1 56, 158, 165-1 67, and 169-1 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Lange (US Patent 7077810). | N/A | N/A |
| 48 | US20060247502A1 | 4/28/2005 | 11/2/2006 | 2/26/2008 | FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | Claims 13-2 1,25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 200410 15 1379). | N/A |
| 49 | US20070066893A1 | 11/29/2005 | 3/22/2007 | 2/26/2008 | FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | Claim 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mattrey (US Patent No. 6,444,192 Bl) and further in view of Zhang et al (US Patent No.6,996,549 B2). | N/A |
| 50 | US20070145137A1 | 12/27/2005 | 6/28/2007 | 8/31/2007 | N/FR | 103 rejection | N/A | N/A | 1. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemelson- U.S. Patent No.: 5,181,521 in view of’prantz et al. (hereafter bbFrantz")-Patent Application Publication US 200510033599 Al. 2. Claims 17-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemelson in . view of Smith et al. (hereafter "Smith")-U.S.Patent No.: 6,854,651 B2. | N/A |
| 51 | US20070214002A1 | 4/30/2002 | 9/13/2007 | 3/8/2007 | FR | 102 and 103 rejections | N/A | Claims 1-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Malik (US2001/0037219). | Claims 1, 4-1 0, 12-1 7, 19-25, 27-33, 35-38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Davis (US 200310028399) in view of Malik (200110037219). | N/A |
| 52 | US20040181130A1 | 3/12/2004 | 9/16/2004 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 53 | US20040193067A1 | 3/24/2004 | 9/30/2004 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 54 | US20040254480A1 | 2/25/2004 | 12/16/2004 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 55 | US20050241639A1 | 7/12/2005 | 11/3/2005 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 56 | US20050261599A1 | 5/21/2004 | 11/24/2005 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 57 | US20060111944A1 | 12/2/2005 | 5/25/2006 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 58 | US20060173708A1 | 1/28/2005 | 8/3/2006 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 59 | US20070053558A1 | 9/6/2005 | 3/8/2007 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 60 | US20070149890A1 | 12/22/2005 | 6/28/2007 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 61 | US20040010185A1 | 7/11/2002 | 1/15/2004 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 62 | US20030194118A1 | 4/22/2003 | 10/16/2003 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 63 | US20070179398A1 | 8/24/2005 | 8/2/2007 | N/A | N/A | Examination information not available | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |