Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13, 28, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 59-61, 65, and 67-72 have been amended since the independent claims 1, 59, and 70 have been directly amended. The amendments to claims 1, 59, and 70 contain subject matter and/or errors that have resulted in claims 1-13, 28, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 59-61, 65, and 67-72 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) – see the rejections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13, 28, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 59-61, 65, and 67-72 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The new grounds for rejection was necessitated by the amended claims. The new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), written description requirement and/or new matter situation.
Accordingly, this action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13, 28, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 59-61, 65, and 67-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (line 22) recites “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols.” However, the written description provides no support for such a recitation. All of the other amendments to claim 1 are well supported by the written description, but there is no disclosure of “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols” or the like. The word “protocol” shows up a single time and is used in reference to a wireless protocol for communication and not treatment protocols. The word “protocol” and (its cognates) do not show up in any disclosure regarding a memory that stores a plurality/multiplicity of treatment protocols/plans or the like.
Claim 1 (line 26) recites “a user selecting a treatment protocol.” The written description provides no support for such a recitation.
Claim 59 (line 25) recites “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols.” However, the written description provides no support for such a recitation. All of the other amendments to claim 59 are well supported by the written description, but there is no disclosure of “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols” or the like. The word “protocol” shows up a single time and is used in reference to a wireless protocol for communication and not treatment protocols. The word “protocol” and (its cognates) do not show up in any disclosure regarding a memory that stores a plurality/multiplicity of treatment protocols/plans or the like.
Claim 59 (line 29) recites “a user selecting a treatment protocol.” The written description provides no support for such a recitation.
Claim 70 (line 29) recites “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols.” However, the written description provides no support for such a recitation. All of the other amendments to claim 59 are well supported by the written description, but there is no disclosure of “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols” or the like. The word “protocol” shows up a single time and is used in reference to a wireless protocol for communication and not treatment protocols. The word “protocol” and (its cognates) do not show up in any disclosure regarding a memory that stores a plurality/multiplicity of treatment protocols/plans or the like.
Claim 70 (line 33) recites “a user selecting a treatment protocol.” The written description provides no support for such a recitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/AARON F ROANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights