Changes

Bilski 35 USC § 101 Rejections Patent Application List

14,583 bytes added, 09:10, 18 March 2009

/* '''Bilski Diagnostic Methods Sample''' */

|}

== '''Bilski Diagnostic Methods Sample''' ==

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''S.No'''

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''Patent/Publication No.'''

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''Rejection type'''

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''101 Rejection'''

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''102 Rejection'''

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''103 Rejection'''

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''112 rejection'''

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''1'''

|US20050209181A1

|112 rejection

|N/A

|Amended claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''2'''

|US20050209300A1

|Rejection information not available

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''3'''

|US20050208054A1

|Rejection information not available

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''4'''

|US20050220771A1

|102, 103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 130-133 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US 20040259966 (<nowiki>’</nowiki>966).

|Claims 130-135 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 5885234 (<nowiki>’</nowiki>234) in view of US 20040249327 (<nowiki>’</nowiki>327).

|Claims 130-135 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"|'''5'''

|US20050249805A1

|Rejection information not available

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''6'''

|US20050249704A1

|103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16- 17, and 19-28 remain rejected under 35 USC 5 103(a) as being obvious in view of the combination of Nakatani et a1 ("Nakatani"), Vincenti et a1 ("Vincenti") , Hayosh et a1 ("Hayosh"), Paty et a1 ("Paty") and Jacobs et a1 ("Jacobs"), as set forth on pages 4-7 of the office action mailed on 1 1/30/2007. 2. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 19 remain rejected, and amendedlnew claims 20-26 are also rejected, under 35 USC § 103(a) as being obvious in view of the combination of the "Study of Zenepax" document, Khoury et a1 ("Khoury"), Paty et a1 ("Paty"), and Jacobs et a1 ("Jacobs"), as set forth on pages 7-9 of the office action mailed on 811 112006.

|1. Claims 9 and 17 remain rejected, and amended claims 12 and 20, as well as new claim 21, are also rejected under 35 USC 5 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to claimed trademarks, as set forth on page 6 of the prior office action mailed on 811 112006. The Applicants<nowiki>’</nowiki> response received on 1211812006 does not address this issue; and it is noted that trademarks appear in these claims. 2. Claims 6, 9, 12, and 14 recite the limitation "the interleukin-2 receptor antagonist". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''7'''

|US20050249823A1

|102 and 103 rejections

|N/A

|Claims I, 5-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hermelin et al. (US Patent No. 6258846).

|Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hermelin et al. in view of Kiliaan et al. (US PGPUB No. 200210040058).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''8'''

|US20050250688A1

|103 rejection

|N/A

|Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toledo- Pereyra (Klin Wochenschr, 1991, 69: 1099-1 104) in view of Benedict et al. (of record on the 9/20/04 IDS) and in view of the product use sheet from I ,5-dansyl-Glu-Gly-Arg chloromethyl ketone from Calbiochem (revision 27 May 1997).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''9'''

|US20050261189A1

|101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections

|Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101

|1. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13,14, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by WO 200017326 Al, March 30,2000 (of record). 2. Claims 1-10, 17-19,2 1,23-30, 32,33-37, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent <nowiki>~</nowiki> <nowiki>~</nowiki> p l i c a t i o20n0 60 1 15464, filed with a claim of priority to June 25, 2003

|1. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Application 200601 15464 as applied to claims 1-10,23-30,32, 33, 35-37,40,41, and 43 above, and further in view of Reichsman et al., J. Cell Biol. 1996 135: 819-827. 2. Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Application 200601 15464 as applied to claims 1-10,23-30, 32, 33, 35-37<nowiki>’</nowiki>, 40,41, and 43 above, and further in view of US Patent 159462, <nowiki>~</nowiki>ecembe1r 2,2000

|1. 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. 2. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 3. Claims 17-22, 34, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 4. Claims 1, 2, 24, and 35 are rejected under.35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''10'''

|US20050260243A1

|103 rejections

|N/A

|1. Claims 1-5, 7-10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beerse et a/. (US Patent 6,190,675Bl) in view of Tautvydas et a/. (WO 01143549 A2; cited in the IDS). 2. Claims 1 and 5-6 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beerse et a/. (US Patent 6,190,675Bl) in view of Tautvydas et a/. (WO 01143549 A2; cited in the IDS), further in view of Diehl et a/. (US Patent 5,591,442).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''11'''

|US20050260161A1

|102, 103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 46-47,49-51 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Eriksson et al. (WO 00127879).

|Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Erikkson et al. (WO 00127879 in view ofAlitalo et al. (WO 01162942).

|Claims 46-54 (presently numbered 30-38, respectively) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''12'''

|US20060014719A1

|112 rejection

|N/A

|Claims 1-4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''13'''

|US20060014165A1

|112 rejection

|N/A

|Claims 16-22, 26-32, 11 6, and 149 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make andlor use the invention.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''14'''

|US20060019890A1

|102, 103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Burger et al. (American Heart Journal, December 2002).

|Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JACC Abstracts, February 2000, citation 4 in the IDS of 8/12/05) in view of Ogawa et al. (Can J Physiol Pharmacol, 2001).

|Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''15'''

|US20060079574A1

|101, 102 and 112 rejection

|Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of prior U.S. Patent No. 5,925,672 of record.

| Claims 1-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Weiss (U.S.Patent No. 5,208,244) of record.

|N/A

|Claims 2,6 and 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"|'''16'''

|US20060079533A1

|Rejection information not available

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''17'''

|US20060116315A1

|102 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 2 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Lee et al., US 2003/0224450, filing date of 0812001 for reasons of record as applied to claim 2 in section 10 of Paper mailed on April 2,2007.

|N/A

|Claim 2 and new claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, for reasons of record as applied to claim 2 in section 3 of Paper mailed on April 12,2007.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''18'''

|US20060210541A1

|103 rejection

|N/A

|Claims l,2, 5, 6, 8, and 1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cutler (WO 98109644) taken with Wilson et al. (US 5,866,552).

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''19'''

|US20060211769A1

|112 rejection

|N/A

|Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for compounds used in working examples on pages 22-24 of the specification including compounds A6VlOCI through A6B10C4 as well as for analog compounds 2-26 of A6B10C4, does not reasonably provide enablement for all of the possible structures encompassed in claim 24.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''20'''

|US20060211020A1

|112 rejection

|N/A

|Claims 1, 5-1 2, 14-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''21'''

|US20070010435A1

|102, 103 and 112 rejections

|N/A

|Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by WO 99127944 to Schenk (Cite No. BE on Applicants<nowiki>’</nowiki> IDS dated 17 October 2005).

|Claims 14 and 15 are under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO99127944 to Schenk, in view of Carro et al. (citation CS on IDS dated 17 October 2005).

|Claims 1-8, 10 and 13-1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method of treating a patient suffering from Alzheimer<nowiki>’</nowiki>s disease (AD) comprising administration of K6Apl -30-NH2(EI8El9) or of an antibody or antibody fragment which binds to amyloid-beta, does not reasonably provide enablement for treatment of any patient with any amyloid disease comprising administration of any compound which binds to free amyloid-beta in a body fluid of the patient.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''22'''

|US20070010484A1

|Rejection information not available

|N/A

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''23'''

|US20070049614A1

|

|N/A

|Claims 1 - 1 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bradette et al., Gastroenterology, and Caras et a<nowiki>]</nowiki>., Gastroenterology, in view of Stacher et al., British Journal of --- Clinical Pharmacoloay.

|Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in the last Office Action because the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.

|-

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|'''24'''

|US20070054328A1

|Rejection information not available

|N/A

|-

|}

MJABDUL

172

edits

Changes

Bilski 35 USC § 101 Rejections Patent Application List

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Tools