29,019 bytes added,
07:44, 31 March 2009 {|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''S.No.'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Publication No.'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Date of Rejection'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Filing date'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Rejection type'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''101 Rejection'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''102 Rejection'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''103 Rejection'''</font>
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''112 Rejection'''</font>
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080097240
|align = "center"|10/22/2008
|align = "center"|4/11/2007
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 1,4-7, 80 and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Henning et al .(US 6,155,992).
|1. Claims 6 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al .(US 6,155,992) in view of Bojan et al. (US 200210099308 Al). 2. Claims 76 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al .(US 6,155,992) in view of Eppstein et al. (US 2002101 69394 Al). 3. Claims 77-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al .(US 6,155,992) in view of Eppstein et al. (US 200210169394 Al) and in further view of Bojan et al. (US 200210099308 Al). 4. Claims 84-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al. (US 6,155,992) in view of Bojan et al. (US 200210099308 Al). 5. Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henning et al. (US 6,155,992) in view of Roe et al. (US 200410236251 Al).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080097237
|align = "center"|4/8/2008
|align = "center"|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<nowiki>’</nowiki>), 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.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''3'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080097231
|align = "center"|12/2/2008
|align = "center"|10/18/2006
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 1-2, 4-1 3, 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Geva (US 7222054).
|Claims 3, 14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geva (7222054) in view of Budde (3556084).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''4'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080097226
|align = "center"|2/2/2009
|align = "center"|6/9/2006
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kurtz et al. (US 4,231,354, hereinafter Kurtz).
|1. Claims 2, 10-1 2 and 14-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz in view of Recchia et al. ("Reduced Nitric Oxide Production and Altered Myocardial Metabolism During the Decompensation of Pacing-Induced Heart Failure in the Conscious Dog," hereinafter Recchia). 2. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz.
|Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''5'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080097196
|align = "center"|6/5/2008
|align = "center"|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.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''6'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080097175
|align = "center"|11/24/2008
|align = "center"|9/29/2006
|102 and 103 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 10-1 6, 23, 24, and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ali et al. (US 20051006541 7).
|Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 20051006541 7) in view of Mechlenburg (US 200110018547).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''7'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080097173
|align = "center"|6/12/2008
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''8'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080097169
|align = "center"|12/9/2008
|align = "center"|8/29/2006
|103 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|1. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 13-1 4, 16, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack et al. (US 56661 04) in view of Rosenfeld (US 58271 91 ). 2. Claims 3 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daly et al. 3. Claims 5, 22, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Butte et al. 4. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Policker et al. (US 7330753). 5. Claims 8, I I, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack, Rosenfeld and Policker as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Ganguly et al. (US 4926871 ). 6. Claims 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Mault et al. (US 200302081 13). 7. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack and Rosenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowman et al. (US 20050283327). 8. Claims 23, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack modified by Rosenfeld and Butte as applied to claims 22 and 24 above, and further in view of Shalon et al. (US 20060064037).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''9'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080091122
|align = "center"|6/30/2008
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''10'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080091121
|align = "center"|12/1/2008
|align = "center"|3/20/2007
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|Claims 1-9, 13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Asada (U.S. Patent No. 6,236,037 BI).
|Claims 10-1 2, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asada (U.S. Patent No. 6,236,037 Bl).
|Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''11'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080091114
|align = "center"|2/19/2009
|align = "center"|12/29/2006
|102, 103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|1. Claims 8, 10, 22-26, 30, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Hess (2007101 56061 ). 2. Claims 34, 35, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Stahmann (200610258952).
|1. Claims 1-6, 9, 11 -21, 27-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess (2007101 56061) in view of Stahmann (200610258952). 2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess (200710156061) in view of Stahmann (200610258952) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pitts Crick (6,104,949). 3. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sta hmann (200610258952).
|Claims I, 4, 5, 7, 9, I I, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''12'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080091092
|align = "center"|2/9/2009
|align = "center"|10/12/2007
|103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|N/A
|Claims 1-8 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 20021003531 5).
|Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''13'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080091090
|align = "center"|11/28/2008
|align = "center"|7/9/2007
|102 rejection
|N/A
|1. Claims 1,2,4 - 6,8 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Segalowitz U.S. Patent No. 5,511,553. 2. Claims 1 - 5 and 7 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Stivoric et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,285,090.
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''14'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080091089
|align = "center"|11/28/2008
|align = "center"|7/9/2007
|102 rejection
|N/A
|1. Claims 1,2,4 - 6,8 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Segalowitz U.S. Patent No. 5,511,553. 2. Claims 1 - 3,5,7 - 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Stivoric et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,285,090.
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''15'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080091086
|align = "center"|3/2/2009
|align = "center"|10/9/2007
|101 and 102 rejections
|Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
|Claims 1- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by WO 01185021 A1 to Aguilera et al.
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''16'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080086060
|align = "center"|8/21/2008
|align = "center"|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.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''17'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080086045
|align = "center"|10/22/2008
|align = "center"|12/7/2007
|101, 103 and 112 rejections
|1. Claims 1-30 and 58-1 06 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,309,607. 2. Claims 1-6, 10-15,21-33,35, 58-63, 67-72, 76, 82-84, 88 and 95-105 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 25,28,33-47 and 49-5 1 of copending Application No. 1 11409,735.
|N/A
|1. Claims 58-67,70-71,78-88 and 105-107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 (US 5,372,946, submitted in the IDS filed on December 7,2007). 2. Claims 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 (5,372,946) in view of Blake (US 5,3 16,730, also cited in the IDS filed on December 7,2007). 3. Claims 72-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 in view of Jaeger (US 4,116,635, also cited in the IDS filed on December 7,2007). 4. Claims 76-77 and 95-1 04 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 in view of Beythien et a1 (article submitted in the IDS filed on December 7,2007). 5. Claims 89-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cusak et a1 in view of Applicant<nowiki>’</nowiki>s admitted prior art in the specification.
|Claims 16 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''18'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080086044
|align = "center"|9/25/2008
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''19'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080086038
|align = "center"|3/6/2009
|align = "center"|9/18/2007
|101 rejection
|Claims 1-2 and 4-1 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 - 82 of U.S. Patent No. 6,859,280.
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''20'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080086035
|align = "center"|11/14/2008
|align = "center"|10/20/2006
|101 and 102 rejections
|Claims 6-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.
|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257.
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''21'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080083414
|align = "center"|11/13/2008
|align = "center"|10/20/2006
|101 and 102 rejections
|Claims 6-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a tangible result.
|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barrera US Patent Publication No. 200510145257 which incorporates by reference in paragraph 0019 of the specification, Malackowski et al. US<br>Patent Publication No. 200110034530 (hereinafter Malackowski).
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''22'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080082022
|align = "center"|11/26/2008
|align = "center"|9/8/2006
|101, 102 and 103 rejections
|Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
|Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in<br>the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Keitzer (US 3,363,619).
|1. Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Keitzer (US 3,363,619). 2. Claims 12-1 9 and 21 -24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kreitzer as applied to claims 1-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Rollema (US 5,377,101). 3. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kreitzer in view of Rollema as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Alyfuku (US 5,410,471).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''23'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080082016
|align = "center"|2/5/2009
|align = "center"|10/3/2006
|103 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|Claims 1-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hardahl (US 2005101 77049) in view of Reinhoff, Jr et al. (US 2002/0133495)
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''24'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080082015
|align = "center"|3/4/2009
|align = "center"|10/3/2006
|103 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Fischell et al. (PG Publication 200410059238) in view of Aversano et al. (200410034284)
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''25'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080082012
|align = "center"|8/26/2008
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''26'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080082011
|align = "center"|1/9/2008
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''27'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080082005
|align = "center"|12/17/2008
|align = "center"|7/3/2007
|103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|N/A
|Claims I, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O<nowiki>’</nowiki>Brien in view of Penner, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 200510288727A1 ("Penner").
|Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''28'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080081979
|align = "center"|2/17/2009
|align = "center"|9/15/2006
|103 rejection
|N/A
|N/A
|Claims 1-3, 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim) (US 200610025670 Al), and further in view of Chen et al. (Chen) (US 2007101 00952 A1 ).
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''29'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080081975
|align = "center"|2/13/2009
|align = "center"|9/28/2006
|103 and 112 rejections
|N/A
|N/A
|1. Claims 1-1 3 and 15-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah et al. "Noninvasive Early Detection of Brain Edema in Mice by Near-Infrared Light Scattering," Journal of Neuroscience Research 80:293-299 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 6,668,181 B2). 2. Claims 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah et al. "Noninvasive Early Detection of Brain Edema in Mice by Near-Infrared Light Scattering," Journal of Neuroscience Research 80:293-299 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 6,668,181 B2) and Schmitt et al. (US 200410230106). 3. Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah et al. "Noninvasive Early Detection of Brain Edema in Mice by Near-Infrared Light Scattering," Journal of Neuroscience Research 80:293-299 in view of Wenzel et al. (US 6,668,181 B2) and Yamamoto et al. (US 200310088162 AI). 4. Claims 13, 15, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiagarajah in view of Wenzel as applied to claims 13 and 19 above, and further in view of Giller (US 6,567,690).
|Claims 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for isobestic wavelengths of water 11 80 and 1300, does not reasonably provide enablement for isobestic wavelengths in general.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''30'''</font>
|align = "center"|US 20080081973
|align = "center"|10/28/2008
|align = "center"|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.<nowiki>’</nowiki>417 (cited by Applicant).
|1. Claims 8, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swedlow et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>4 17, as applied to claims 1, 17 and 25, further in view of Gravenstein et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>825 (USPN 5,10 1,825). 2. Claims 7, 10, 18, 20, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swedlow et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>417, as applied to claims 1, 17 and 25, further in view of Gravenstein et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>825, further in<br>view of Aldrich<nowiki>’</nowiki>064. 3. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9- 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 3 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldberger et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>464 (USPN 4,685,464) further in view of Hecke1<nowiki>’</nowiki>995 (US Pub No. 200210 137995) further in view of Aldrich<nowiki>’</nowiki>064.
|Claims 14, 15, 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
|-
|}