Changes

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Sl.No.'''</font>||align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Patent/Publication No.'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Application Date'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''IPC ClassesDate of Publication'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Date of rejection'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''FR or N/FR'''</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" bgcolor = "#CCFFFF"|US20030176773A1US20060094954A1|1/21/2005|A61B000500||102 and 103 rejections5/4/2006|2/17/2009|N/AFR|101 and 102 rejections|Claims 1 - 1 1, 13, and 15-24 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Progress in Ambulatory Assessment, Computer101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128statutory subject matter.||Claims 1. Claim 12 is -1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103102(ae) 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 anticipated by Vining et al., "A Multiple Random Staircase Method of Psychological Pain Assessment", (cited by applicant678541 0). 2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Progress in<br>Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in<br>Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128.|N/A|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2'''</font>||align = "center"|US20030181818A1US20040078241A1|10/7/2003|A61B00050452 <nowiki>4/22/2004|<2/13/nowiki> A61N00013622009|FR|101, 102 and 103 rejections||N/A||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, 4450 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, 78-13, 10 16 and 58 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Arand Campbell et al. (5,8 17U.S. Patent Number 6,027)047,259.||Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10,27-3413,36,38 16 and 58 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious unpatentable over Kim Campbell et al. (, U.S. Patent Number 6,708047,058) 259 in view of Arand et alOon, U. (5S. Patent Number 7,817321,027)861.||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''3'''</font>||align = "center"|US20030191406A1US20040176679A1|3/15/2004|A61B000511 <nowiki>9/9/2004|<12/nowiki> G06F00190012/2008|FR|101 , 102, 103 and 112 rejections||Claims 192, 521-546 and 573-20 598 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 as claiming 101 because the same claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as that of claims 1follows. Claims 92, 521-20 of prior 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. 65,561151,992856. This is |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 double patenting rejection) as being unpatentable over Halmann et al.||N/A||N/A|, U.S. Patent No.5,151,856|Claims 2504, 12- 14 506, 507, 530, 532, 533, 556, 558, 559, 582, 584 and 20 585 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12112, 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">'''4'''</font>||align = "center"|US20030194118A1US20060031022A1|10/4/2005|A61B00050452 <nowiki>2/9/2006|<12/nowiki> G06T000760||Rejection information not available|16/2008|N/AFR|101, 102 and 112|N/AClaim 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||N/AClaims 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.

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''5'''</font>||align = "center"|US20030195770A1US20060084847A1||G01N003348 <nowiki>|<11/nowiki> A61B000500 <nowiki>|<30/nowiki> G06F001900 <nowiki>2005|<4/nowiki> G06Q001000 <nowiki>|<20/nowiki> G06Q003000 <nowiki>2006|<11/nowiki> G06Q00500025/2008|FR|101 and 102 and 103 rejections||N/A||Claims 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 Davies Jacobsen et al. (United States US Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2003/0046114)Number 6,198,394.||1 2. Claims 1-3and 19-5 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103102(ab) as being unpatentable over Davies <br>anticipated by Mazar et al. in view of Pestotnik et al. (United States US Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2004/0260666)No. 200410122489. 2. Claims 34-10 1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies Mazar et al.<br>US Patent Publication No. 200410122489 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Pestotnik Kehr et al. (United States US Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2004/0260666)No.200410122489.|N/A|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''6'''</font>||align = "center"|US20030216627A1US20030195770A1||A61B000500 <nowiki>|<6/nowiki> G01J000328 <nowiki>4/2002|<10/nowiki> G01N002135 <nowiki>16/2003|<1/nowiki> G01N00214912/2009|FR|102 and 103 rejections||N/A||Claims 1-6, l0,20-21,35-40,44, 54-55,69-74, 78, and 88-89 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1.02102(be) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,115,673 to Malin Davies et al.(United States Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2003/0046114).||1. Claims 253-27, 59-61, and 93-95 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 <nowiki> </nowiki>2004/0260666). 2. Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S. Patent 6,115,673 to Malin C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies et al.|<br>in view of Pestotnik et al. (United States Patent Application Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>2004/0260666).|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''7'''</font>||align = "center"|US20030223905A1US20040078219A1|10/21/2002|A61B000515 <nowiki>4/22/2004|<12/nowiki> G01G001941419/2008|FR|103 102 and 112 103 rejections||N/A||N/A||1. Claims I1, 56, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21-12 25, 29-38 and 2245-24 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103102(ae) as being unpatentable Fritz (USP 5anticipated by Knapp USPN 6,260278,219)999 2.||Claims 41, 6, 8-12 9, 11-15, 17-19, 21-38, and 2245-24 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112102(e) as being anticipated by Alleckson et al. US Publication Number US 200610064323 Al.|Claims 12, second paragraph13, 15, 17 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being indefinite for failing unpatentable over Knapp as applied to particularly point out claims 1, 12, 14 and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention25 above, and further in view of Walker et al.USPN 6,302,844 (Hereinafter Walker).|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''8'''</font>||align = "center"|US20030233031A1US20050004476A1|5/28/2004|A61B000500 <nowiki>1/6/2005|<10/nowiki> G06F0019003/2008|FR|102 and 103 rejectionsrejection|N/A|N/A||1. Claims 139 & 41-9, 13-33 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102103(ba) as being anticipated by Doi unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US Patent 6,22 1,009 B 12003101 67081 ) in view of Zhu et al. 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 A200310220582). 2.||Claims 1051-1 1 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doi <br>Zhu et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>081) in view of Lloyd Zhu et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>582), and further in view of Jensen et al. (US Patent Number <br>6,080752,106 A765).||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''9'''</font>||align = "center"|US20030235817A1US20050080322A1|8/16/2004|A61B000500 <nowiki>|<4/nowiki> A61B0005053 <nowiki>14/2005|<11/13/nowiki> G01N00334872008|FR|102 rejection|and 103 rejections|N/A||1. Claims 521-568, 8811-17,10519-10722, and 10924-26,28-41, 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 CygnusHeinonen et al. US Patent Number 5, Inc772,586. 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 03100012701l15056. 4. Claims 1-8, reference ABll-6 in the information disclosure17,19-22,24-26, statement filed 28 July 2003-41, 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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''10'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040003670A1US20050090372A1|6/24/2004|A61B00051034/28/2005|12/23/2008| N/FR|103 and 112 rejections|N/A||N/A||Claims 2820 -42 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States Patent 5,795,574 to Breton Luce et al. in view of United States Patent 6U.S. PGPub No. 200310163353.|Claims 20 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,267second paragraph,842 as being indefinite for failing to Ona et al. particularly point out and "Sensory Testing Methodsn to Chambers, IV<br>et al||N/Adistinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''11'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040010185A1US20060100533A1|11/7/2005|A61B000500||Rejection information not available5/11/2006|10/30/2008|N/AFR|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)|N/A|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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''12'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040024296A1US20060178595A1|12/13/2005|A61B0005008/10/2006|2/27/2009|FR|102 and 103 rejectionsrejection|N/A|N/A||1. Claims 1-3I, 10-1 14, 6-14, and 19-20 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102103(ba) as being anticipated by PCT Application Publication W019715229 to Cytometrics, Incunpatentable over Factor et al. (CytometricsUS 6,258,042)in view of Anaesthesia (cited by Applicant2002).||Claim 4 is 2. Claims 15, 17-1 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over PCT Application Publication W019715229 Factor et al. (US 6,258,042) in view of Anaesthesia (2002) as applied to Cytometricsclaim 1 above, Incand further in view of Radar Chart 2002). 3. Claims 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(Cytometricsa)as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (cited US 6,258,042) as modified by ApplicantAnaesthesia (2002) and Radar Chart (2002) as applied to claim 2claims 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. Patent 5C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Factor et al. (US 6,987258,094 to Clarke 042) as modified by Anaesthesia (2002), Radar Chart (2002), and Maurer Maurer et al. (ClarkeUS 5,873,900) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kaplan (US 4,438,130).||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''13'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040030582A1US20060235315A1|3/18/2005|A61B00050010/19/2006|2/24/2009|N/FR|103 rejection||N/A||N/A||1. Claims 1,4-1020,2128-24, 2780 and 96-31, and 42 1 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over W098159487 Verrier et al (US 5,902,250) in view of Peifer Verrier et al (US598751 9US 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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''14'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040078241A1US20060253097A1|10/21/2005|A61B000500 <nowiki>|<11/nowiki> G06F001721 <nowiki>|<9/nowiki> G06F001900 <nowiki>2006|<12/nowiki> G06Q00500022/2008|N/FR|101, 102 and 103 rejectionsrejection|N/A|N/A|1. Claims 10 and 1 -1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 based on Supreme Court precedent, and recent Federal Circuit decisions, a 5 101 process must 103(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 being unpatentable over Mault (1981US 2003102081 13); 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 view of Mauro (10 and 11US 5957841) are not tied to a particular apparatus nor do they execute a transformation. Thus, they are non-statutory 2.||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 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campbell et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,047,259 Mault in view of Oon, USterling (US 2005100361 47).S. Patent Number 7,321,861.||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''15'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040075433A1US20030191406A1|5/13/2003|A61B0005055 <nowiki>|<10/nowiki> A61B000600 <nowiki>9/2003|<8/nowiki> G06F00190027/2004|N/FR|102 101 and 112 rejections||N/A||Claims 1-30 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) 10 1 as being anticipated by Nishikawa et alclaiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U. PS.NPatent No. 6,058561,322 (Nishikawa)992. This is a double patenting rejection.|N/A| |N/A|Claims 242, 12-28 14 and 30 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1121 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">'''16'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040078219A1US20050240112A1|6/22/2005|G06F00190010/27/2005|9/20/2007|N/FR|101, 102 and 103 rejections||N/A||1. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19, 2117-25, 29-38 and 45-54 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) 101 as being anticipated by Knapp USPN claiming the same invention, despite a slight difference in wording, as that of claims 42-51 of prior U.S. Patent No. 6, 278936,999 010. 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, 8936,010.|Claims 1-96, 11ll-1514, & 17-19, 21-38, and 45-54 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(eb) as being anticipated by Alleckson Feng et al. US Publication Number US 200610064323 Al(5,509,425).||Claims 12, 137-10, 15, 17 and 26-28 16, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knapp as applied to claims 1unpat Feng et al. (US 5, 12509, 14 and 25 above, and further 425) in view of Walker Oriol et al. USPN 6(US 5,302596,844 (Hereinafter Walker993).||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''17'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040097814A1|12/9/2003|A61B0005024 <nowiki>5/20/2004|<4/13/nowiki> A61B000504522007|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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''18'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040133094A1US20050251054A1|5/10/2004|A61B000600 <nowiki>|<11/nowiki> A61B000603||102 rejection10/2005|11/16/2006|N/AFR|101, 102 and 103 rejections|Claims 1-33 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(eb) as being anticipated by Acharya Risk et al6416473. |1. Claims 4, 25, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(6922462a)as being unpatentable over Risk et a16416473 in view of Hampton 6875418.||N/A| 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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''19'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040170304A1US20060089548A1|10/19/2005|A61B0003113 <nowiki>4/27/2006|<8/nowiki> A61B000518 <nowiki>28/2006|<N/nowiki> G08B002106FR|101 and 112 rejections|103 rejection|Claim 43 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1.|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 Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 112, second paragraph, as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (U.S. Patent 6,082,858) in view of indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the article, "Effectiveness of Pupil Area Detection Technique using Two Light Sources and Image Difference Method", by Yoshinobu Ebisawa and Shin-ichi Satohsubject matter which applicant regards as the invention.||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''20'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040176697A1US20030176773A1|3/12/2002|A61B0005046 <nowiki>9/18/2003|<5/nowiki> G06K00090023/2005|FR|102, 103 and 112 103 rejections||N/A||Claims 1-31 1, 1513, 17-1 9 and 2115-23 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(be) as being<br>anticipated by Prezas et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4Progress in Ambulatory Assessment,616Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies,659)Chapter 7, pages 123-128.||1. Claim 9 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chamoun (U.S. Patent No. 5Progress in Ambulatory Assessment,020Computer-Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Fields Studies,540) Chapter 7, pages 123-128 as applied to claimsl-3, 15, 17-19 claims 1 and 21-23 10 above, and further hrther in view of Prezas Gracely et al. (U.S. 4,616"A Multiple Random Staircase Method of Psychological Pain Assessment",659(cited by applicant).||Claims 11-13 are 2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, 103(a) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out unpatentable over Progress in<br>Ambulatory Assessment, Computer-Assisted Psychological and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the inventionPsychophysiological Methods in<br>Monitoring and Fields Studies, Chapter 7, pages 123-128.|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''21'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040176679A1US20030181818A1|3/25/2002|G09B002328 <nowiki>9/25/2003|<11/nowiki> G09B0023301/2005|FR|101, 102, and 103 and 112 rejections|N/A|Claims 92, 5211-546 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 922, 5214-546 and 573-598 defines a carrier medium embodying functional descriptive material (i.e.5, a computer program or computer executable code).||Claims 917, 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 10 and 593-596 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Halmann Arand et al., U.S. Patent No. (5,1518 17,856027).||Claims 5041-5, 5107-8, 51410, 51927-34, 53036, 536, 540, 545, 556, 562, 566, 571, 582, 588, 592 38 and 597 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable obvious over Halmann Kim et al.(6, U.S. Patent No708,058) in view of Arand et al.(5,151817,856027).||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.N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''22'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040181130A1US20030216627A1|3/7/2003|A61B0005103 <nowiki>11/20/2003|<3/nowiki> A61B001802||Rejection information not available|15/2005|N/AFR|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.|N/A|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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''23'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040181260A1US20030223905A1|3/26/2003|A61B0005083 <nowiki>|<12/nowiki> A61N000137 <nowiki>4/2003|<6/11/nowiki> A61N00013722007|FR|102, 103 and 112 rejections|N/A|N/A||Claims 1I, 5-8,14,15 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102@) as being anticipated by Binder (US 6,174,289).||Claims 922-11,16, and 17 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Binder Fritz (US 6,174,289) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Tockrnan et al. (US USP 5,540260,727219).||Claims 144-16, 12 and 18 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.

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''24'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040193067A1US20030233031A1|12/6/2002|A61B00050452 <nowiki>12/18/2003|<3/nowiki> A61B000700||Rejection information not available|5/2004|N/AFR|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.|N/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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''25'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040249778A1US20030235817A1|3/21/2003|A61B000500 <nowiki>12/25/2003|<5/11/nowiki> G06F0019002007|FR|103 and 112 rejections|102 rejection|N/A||N/A||Claims 52-56, 88,105-107, and 109-1 - 13 are 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103102(ab) as being unpatentable over Altman et alanticipated by Cygnus, UInc.S. Pat. No. 557242 1 (WO 031000127, reference AB-6 in view of Brillthe information disclosure, U.S. Pat. No. 5435324statement filed 28 July 2003.|N/A|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.N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''26'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040254480A1US20040003670A1|7/2/2002|A61B0005022 <nowiki>|<1/nowiki> A61B0005021 <nowiki>8/2004|<8/nowiki> A61B0005026 <nowiki>10/2004|<N/nowiki> A61B0005029||Rejection information not availableFR|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<br>et al|N/A||

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''27'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040260178A1US20040024296A1|8/8/2003|A61B0005107 <nowiki>|<2/nowiki> A61B000800 <nowiki>5/2004|<5/nowiki> A61B000806 <nowiki>18/2005|<N/nowiki> A61B000808|FR|102 and 112 103 rejections||N/A||Claims 1.Claims I -3, 4 10- 51 1, 714, and 19-10 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(eb) as being anticipated by Sun et al PCT Application Publication W019715229 to Cytometrics, Inc. (US681 1536 82Cytometrics)(cited by Applicant) 2. Claims I , |Claim 4 - 5, 7 - 10 are further is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102103(ba) as being anticipated by Kane et a 1 unpatentable over PCT Application Publication W019715229 to Cytometrics, Inc. (US6273854 BlCytometrics) 3. Claims 1-(cited by Applicant) as applied to claim 2, 4-1 3 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 further in view of U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Guracar Patent 5,987,094 to Clarke et al . (US6464640 BlClarke)|.|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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''28'''</font>||align = "center"|US20040267101A1US20040030582A1|8/6/2003|A61B000500 <nowiki>2/12/2004|<10/nowiki> G01N002131 <nowiki>28/2004|<N/nowiki> G01N002164FR|103 rejection|102 and 112 rejections|N/A|N/A||Claims 1 ,4- 310, 5 21- 824, 27-31, and 13 - 17 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102103(ba) as being anticipated by Barkenhagenunpatentable over W098159487 in view of Peifer et al (US598751 9).||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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''29'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050004476A1US20040075433A1|10/18/2002|A61B000500 <nowiki>4/22/2004|<3/nowiki> A61N0001365||103 rejection|25/2004|N/AFR|102 and 112 rejections|N/A||Claims 1. Claims 39 & 41-50 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103102(ab) as being unpatentable over Zhu anticipated by Nishikawa et al. (US 2003101 67081 ) in view of Zhu et alP. N. 6,058,322 (US 200310220582Nishikawa). 2. |N/A|Claims 5124-59 are 28 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 112, second paragraph, as being unpatentable over<br>Zhu et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>081) in view of Zhu et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>582), indefinite for failing to particularly point out and further in view of Jensen et aldistinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. (US<br>6,752,765).||

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''30'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050075542A1US20040133094A1|10/24/2003|A61B000500 <nowiki>7/8/2004|<6/11/nowiki> A61B000502052008|N/FR|102, 103 and 112 rejections|rejection|N/A||Claims 1. Claims 63,113,114,117,118,119, and 120 -33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ark Acharya et al. US Patent Number 6,190,314 B1. 2. Claims 63, 113 and 114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b6922462) as being anticipated by Alyfuku et al. US Patent Number 5,410,471 |N/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 <nowiki>~<N/nowiki>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.A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''31'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050080322A1US20040170304A1|2/28/2003|A61B0005009/2/2004|12/28/2006|FR|102 and 103 rejectionsrejection|N/A|N/A||1. Claims 1-82, 11-174, 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 1-4,7,11-169,19,22,24,25,28,29,33-34,36-40 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-13,15I I ,16,19-22,24,2527,28-30,33-4132, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Increa Oy WO 01l15056. 4. Claims 1-838,ll-1740,19-2242,2444-2645,28-4147, 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 150-4,7, 11-16, 19,22,24,25,28,29,33-34,36-40 and 43 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinonen Grace 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 6,238082,338 B1. 4. Claims 23,27, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a858) 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 5the article,801,755 A "Effectiveness of Pupil Area Detection Technique using Two Light Sources and Thomason US Patent Number 6Image Difference Method",3 17,039 Blby Yoshinobu Ebisawa and Shin-ichi Satoh.|| N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''32'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050090372A1US20040176697A1|11/3/2003|A61B0005129/9/2004|3/24/2005|N/FR|102, 103 and 112 rejections||N/A||N/A||Claims 20 1- 26 3, 15, 17-1 9 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being<br>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 Luce 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. PGPub No4,616,659). 200310163353.||Claims 20 11- 26 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">'''33'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050240112A1US20040181260A1|3/11/2004|A61B000504029/16/2004|8/30/2006|101N/FR|102, 102 103 and 103 112 rejections|N/A|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. 68,936,010.||Claims 1-6,ll-14, & 17-20 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b@) as being anticipated by Feng et al. Binder (5US 6,509174,425289).||Claims 79-1011,15-16, & 21 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpat Feng et al. unpatentable over Binder (US 56,509174,425289) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Oriol Tockrnan et al. (US 5,596540,993727).||N/AClaims 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.

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''34'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050241639A1US20040249778A1||A61B000100 <nowiki>|<4/nowiki> A61B000508 <nowiki>16/2004|<12/nowiki> A61M001600 <nowiki>9/2004|<3/8/nowiki> A62B000700||Rejection information not available|2006|N/AFR|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.|N/AClaims 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.

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''35'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050251054A1US20040260178A1||A61B000500 <nowiki>|<6/nowiki> A61B000502 <nowiki>|<23/nowiki> A61B000504 <nowiki>2003|<12/nowiki> A61B000508 <nowiki>23/2004|<11/15/nowiki> A61B001000 <nowiki>2005|<N/nowiki> G06K000962FR||101, 102 and 103 112 rejections|N/A|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 1I , 2, 3, 10, 134 -18, 20, 245, 267-30, 46-51, 55-59, and 65 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(be) as being anticipated by Risk Sun et al 6416473.||1. Claims 4, 25, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(aUS681 1536 82) as being unpatentable over Risk et a16416473 in view of Hampton 6875418. 2. Claims 8I , 94 - 5, 19, 32, 33, 54, 63, and 64 7 - 10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103102(ab) as being unpatentable over Risk anticipated by Kane et al 6416473 in view of Eisenberg et al 54921 17. a 1 (US6273854 Bl) 3. Claims 11, 12, 311-2, 4-1 3 and 66 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103102(ae) as being unpatentable over Risk anticipated by Guracar et al6416473. 4. Claims 21-22 are al (US6464640 Bl)|N/A|Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 112, second paragraph, as being unpatentable over Risk et al 6416473 in view of Sarma et al 5419338 indefinite for failing to particularly point out and Malik et al 6438409. 5. Claims 23, 34, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as being unpatentable over Risk et a1 in view of Lerner 6490480.||N/Athe invention

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''36'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050256389A1US20040267101A1||A61B001900 <nowiki>|<1/nowiki> A61B000505 <nowiki>|<12/nowiki> A61B0005103 <nowiki>2004|<12/nowiki> A61B0005117 <nowiki>|<30/nowiki> A61B000600 <nowiki>2004|<7/nowiki> A61F000200 <nowiki>|<25/nowiki> G06T000100 <nowiki>2005|</nowiki> G06T001740||103 rejectionFR|102 and 112 rejections|N/A||N/A||1. Claims 1-1 3, 5- 8, and 2013 -25 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103102(ab) as being unpatentable over Delp et al (US 5,871,018) in view of Krause et al (US 6,701 ,I 74 BI)anticipated by Barkenhagen. 2. Claims 16 and 17 are |N/A|Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 112, second paragraph, as being unpatentable over Delp et al in view of Krause as applied indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 13 above, and further in view of Nieuweboer (4,081,686).||N/Athe subject matter which applicant regards as the invention

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''37'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050256689A1US20050075542A1|6/18/2003|G01B0017004/7/2005|1/24/2008|FR|102 and , 103 and 112 rejections||N/A||Claims 1-9. Claims 63, 13113, 18-19114, 25117, 31-35118, 39119, 42-44and 120 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ark et al. US Patent Number 6,48-53190, 55-59314 B1. 2. Claims 63, 113 and 63 114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Shechtman Alyfuku et al. (USPN 6524260)US Patent Number 5,410,471 A.||Claims 10-12, 14,40-41, 115 and 60-62 116 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shechtman Ark et al. US Patent Number 6,190,314 B1 as applied to claims 113 and 114 above, and further in view of <nowiki>~</nowiki>oodmanU S Patent Number 6,616,613 B1 (USPN 6524260previously cited by Examiner in Office Action 0504-1 1232004).||N/AClaim(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.

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''38'''</font>||align = "center"|US20050261599A1US20050256389A1|5/17/2005|A61B0005040211/17/2005|2/13/2008|Rejection information not availableFR|103 rejection|N/A||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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''39'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060017576A1US20050256689A1|5/13/2004|G08B00230011/17/2005|7/2/2007|N/FR|102 and 103 rejections||N/A||Claims 1 4-9, 13, 18-19, 25, 31-35, 39, 42-44,48-53, 55-59, 8 and 11-12 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (eb) as being anticipated by Linder Shechtman et al. (US 6681003USPN 6524260).||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 29,40-31 41, and 4360-45 are 62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Humbardover Shechtman et al. 6. Claims 33-37, 39-43 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(aUSPN 6524260) as being unpatentable by Humbard in view of Thong.||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''40'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060020197A1US20060017576A1|10/29/2004|A61B0005051/26/2006|7/25/2006|N/FR|102 and 103 rejections||N/A||Claims 14, 158 and 11-16,19-20,30-31 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(be) as being unpatentable over Wedeen anticipated by Linder (US 6681003).|1. Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S. 2002/0042569 AlC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Linder in view of Hanawa et al. Thong (U.S. 6,023,634US 7076299).||1 2. Claims 2-4,5-11,17-18,28 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wedeen (U.S. 200210042569 Al) Linder in view of Hanawa et al. Humbard (2003/0210147). 3. Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S. 6,023,634C. 103(a), as being unpatentable over Linder in further view of Lin et al. Ericson (NPL Article - VUS 6533733). 2 4. Claims 12-and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wedeen (ULinder.S 5. 200210042569 Al) in view of Hanawa et al. (Claims 29-31 and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S. 6,023,634), in further view of Hanyu et alC. 103(NPL Article - Ua)as being unpatentable by Humbard. 3 6. Claims 2233-2737,29 39-43 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wedeen (U.S. 200210042569 Al) by Humbard in view of Hanawa et alThong. (U.S. 6,023,634), in further view of Jenkins et al. (U.S. Patent No.:6,321,105).||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''41'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060020223A1US20060020197A1|7/9/2004|A61B000505 <nowiki>1/26/2006|<5/nowiki> A61B00050430/2008|FR|102, and 103 and 112 rejections||N/A||Claims 1-4, 615-916, 1119-1720, 1930-22 and 24-26 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(eb) as being anticipated by Galloway unpatentable over Wedeen (U.S. 2002/0042569 Al) in view of Hanawa et al. (US 200410087838U.S. 6,023,634)|.|1. Claims I2-4, 5-14 and 11,17-26 18,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gu Wedeen (U.S. 200210042569 Al) in view of Hanawa et al. (US 4U.S. 6,940023,060634) , in further view of Toomim Lin et al. (US 5,505,208) and lliff (US 5,935,060NPL Article - V). 2. Claims 212-14, 3, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gu et al. Wedeen (US 4,940,060U.S. 200210042569 Al) as modified by Toomim in view of Hanawa et al. (US 5U.S. 6,505023,208634) and lliff (US 5,935,060), as applied to claims I, 5-14 and 17-26 above, and in further in view of Masopust Hanyu et al. (US 5,339,827NPL Article - U).|| 3. Claims 5, 622-27, 18 and 19 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2103(a) as being unpatentable over Wedeen (U.S. 200210042569 Al) in view of Hanawa et al. (U.S. 6, first paragraph023, as failing to comply with the written description requirement634), in further view of Jenkins et al.(U.S. Patent No.:6,321,105).|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''42'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060031022A1US20060020223A1||G06F001900 <nowiki>|<7/nowiki> A61B000500 <nowiki>20/2004|<1/nowiki> G01N003348 <nowiki>26/2006|<5/23/nowiki> G01N0033502008|FR|101, 102 , 103 and 112rejections|N/A|Claim 45 is Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-17, 19-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter102(e) as being anticipated by Galloway et al.(US 200410087838)||Claims 1-1 1. Claims I, 135-1614 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 4,20940,22-24060) in view of Toomim et al. (US 5,45505, 208) and 64-69 lliff (US 5,935,060). 2. Claims 2, 3, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102103(ea)as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (lUS 4,940,060) as being anticipated modified by Levinson Toomim et al. (US 200210 177 1675,505,208) 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).||N/A||Claims 1-205,22-24,456, 18 and 64-69 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11211 2, second first paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as comply with the inventionwritten description requirement.

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''43'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060052717A1|8/31/2005|A61B000504023/9/2006|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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''44'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060085048A1|10/19/2005|A61N000108 <nowiki>4/20/2006|<9/nowiki> A61B00050517/2008|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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''45'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060084847A1US20060112754A1||A61B000500 <nowiki>|<7/nowiki> A61B0005103 <nowiki>11/2005|<6/nowiki> G06F001100 <nowiki>1/2006|<6/nowiki> G06Q001000 <nowiki>4/2007|<N/nowiki> G08B001314|FR|101 and , 102 and 103 rejections||1. Claim 19 is Claims 13-14 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of 35 U.S. Patent NoC. 7,001,334 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 6,524,239. 2. Claim 1 101 because the claimed invention is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousnessdirected to non-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim statutory subject matter.|1 of U.S. Patent No. 7Claims I ,0013,334 8 and claim 1 of US Patent No. 6,524,239 in view of Mazar et al. US Patent Publication No 200410122489.||1. Claims 1910-23 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a and e) as being anticipated by Jacobsen Carlson et al. US Patent Publication Number 6,198,394-2003101 22663. 2. Claims 1-I , 3 , 8 and 1910-23 1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being<br>anticipated by Mazar et al. Mohri US Patent Publication No. 200410122489. 2200210012014. |Claims 47 and 13-1 1 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mazar Carlson et al. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489 as applied to claim 3 aboveall Mohri, and further in view of Kehr et alor Shibaskai. US Patent Publication No. 200410122489.||N/A||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''46'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060089548A1US20060206019A1|12/22/2005|A61B000500 <nowiki>9/14/2006|<6/nowiki> G01B00090217/2008|N/FR|101 102 and 112 103 rejections|N/A|Claim 43 is objected to under 37 CFR Claims 1and 5 are rejected under 35 U.75 S.C. 102(b) as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1anticipated by Hersh et a1.||N<nowiki>’</Anowiki>63 1 (USPN 4,807,63 1).||N/A||Claim 43 is Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, 103(a) as being indefinite for failing unpatentable over Hersh et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>631, as applied to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention1, further in view of Baker, Jr et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>364 (USPN 5,853,364), further in view of Baker, Jr.<nowiki>’</nowiki>847 (USPN 5,485,847).|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''47'''</font>||align = "center" bgcolor = "#CCFFFF"|US20060094954A1US20060241510A1|8/3/2005|A61B00050510/26/2006|6/4/2007|N/FR|101 and 102 rejectionsrejection|N/A|Claims 56-58, 61 -63, 65, 67-73, 75, 105-107, 109-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non15, 139-141, 144-146, 148, 150-statutory subject matter.||Claims 156, 158, 165-1 67, and 169-1 7 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(ea) as being anticipated by Vining et al. Lange (678541 0US Patent 7077810).||N/A||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''48'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060100533A1US20060247502A1|4/28/2005|A61B000502 <nowiki>11/2/2006|<2/nowiki> A61B00050426/2008|FR|102 and 103 rejectionsrejection|N/A|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 13-21, 4, 8 25 and 10-1 3 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over lwabuchi Kim et al. (US Patent 6,327,495 Bl200410 15 1379) in view of Smith et al. (US 2004101 71 961 A1 ).||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''49'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060111944A1US20070066893A1|11/29/2005|A61B000500 <nowiki>|<3/nowiki> G06Q004000 <nowiki>22/2007|<2/nowiki> G07G00011426/2008|FR|Rejection information not available|103 rejection|N/A||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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''50'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060112754A1US20070145137A1|12/27/2005|G01P002100 <nowiki>6/28/2007|<8/nowiki> A61B000511 <nowiki>31/2007|<N/nowiki> A63B002302FR||101, 102 and 103 rejectionsrejection|N/A|Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|N/A|1. Claims I , 3, 8 and 101-12 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102103(a and e) as being anticipated by Carlson et al USunpatentable over Lemelson-2003101 22663U. 2S. Claims I Patent No.: 5, 3181, 8 and 10-1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C521 in view of<nowiki>’</nowiki>prantz et al. 102(bhereafter bbFrantz") as being anticipated by Mohri -Patent Application Publication US 200210012014200510033599 Al. 2.||Claims 7 and 1317-14 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson Lemelson in . view of Smith et all Mohrial. (hereafter "Smith")-U.S.Patent No.: 6, or Shibaskai854,651 B2.||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''51'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060173708A1US20070214002A1|4/30/2002|G06Q001000 <nowiki>9/13/2007|<3/nowiki> A61B0005008/2007|FR|Rejection information not available|102 and 103 rejections|N/A||NClaims 1-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Malik (US2001/A||N/A0037219).|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

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''52'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060178595A1US20040181130A1|3/12/2004|A61B0019009/16/2004|N/A|103 rejectionN/A|Rejection information not available|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|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''53'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060206019A1US20040193067A1|3/24/2004|A61B000500||102 and 103 rejections9/30/2004|N/A|N/A|Rejection information not available|Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hersh et a1.<nowiki>’<N/nowiki>63 1 (USPN 4,807,63 1).A||Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hersh et a1.<nowiki>’<N/nowiki>631, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Baker, Jr et a1.<nowiki>’</nowiki>364 (USPN 5,853,364), further in view of Baker, Jr.<nowiki>’</nowiki>847 (USPN 5,485,847).A|N/A|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''54'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060235315A1US20040254480A1||A61B000504 <nowiki>|<2/nowiki> A61B00050456 <nowiki>|<25/nowiki> A61B00050476 <nowiki>2004|<12/nowiki> A61B00050488 <nowiki>16/2004|<N/nowiki> A61B00050496 <nowiki>A|<N/nowiki> A61B000511A|Rejection information not available|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|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''55'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060241510A1US20050241639A1|7/12/2005|A61B00050811/3/2005|N/A|102 rejectionN/A|Rejection information not available|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|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''56'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060247502A1US20050261599A1|5/21/2004|A61B000500 <nowiki>11/24/2005|<N/nowiki> A61B000505A|N/A|103 rejection|Rejection information not available|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|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''57'''</font>||align = "center"|US20060253097A1US20060111944A1|12/2/2005|A61M0031005/25/2006|N/A|103 rejectionN/A|Rejection information not available|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|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''58'''</font>||align = "center"|US20070053558A1US20060173708A1|1/28/2005|G01N002304 <nowiki>8/3/2006|<N/nowiki> G06K000900A|N/A|Rejection information not available||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''59'''</font>||align = "center"|US20070066893A1US20070053558A1||A61B000600 <nowiki>|<9/6/nowiki> A61B0005107 <nowiki>2005|<3/nowiki> A61B000800 <nowiki>8/2007|<N/nowiki> A61B000808 <nowiki>A|<N/nowiki> A61K004922||103 rejectionA|Rejection information not available|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|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''60'''</font>||align = "center"|US20070149890A1|12/22/2005|A61B0005046/28/2007|N/A|N/A|Rejection information not available||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''61'''</font>||align = "center"|US20070145137A1US20040010185A1|7/11/2002|G06K000710 <nowiki>1/15/2004|<N/nowiki> G06F001700||103 rejection|A|N/A|Rejection information not available|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<nowiki>’<N/nowiki>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.A|N/A|N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''62'''</font>||align = "center"|US20070179398A1US20030194118A1|4/22/2003|A61B00050010/16/2003|N/A|N/A|Rejection information not available||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A

|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''63'''</font>||align = "center"|US20070214002A1US20070179398A1|8/24/2005|G06Q001000 <nowiki>8/2/2007|<N/nowiki> A61B000500A|N/A|102 and 103 rejections|Rejection information not available|N/A||Claims 1-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Malik (US2001N/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).A|N/A|N/A