DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 18, 21, 23-27, 30-32, and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “an upper boundary” in line 7 of “vii),” but instead should recite --the upper boundary--. Claim 16 recites “in whole body hemoglobin mass” in line 8 of “vii),” but instead should recite --in the whole body hemoglobin mass--. Claim 16 recites "a lower boundary" in the last line of “vii),” but instead should recite --the lower boundary--. Claim 18 recites “in whole body hemoglobin mass” in line 4, but instead should recite --in the whole body hemoglobin mass--. Claim 21 recites “the quantity" in line 5,” but instead should recite --a quantity--. Claim 21 recites “ppg” in line 3 of “vii),” but has failed to write out the abbreviation beforehand. As such, previously recited “photoplethysmography” can be used to indicate that it can be abbreviated to “PPG.” Additionally, “the multi-wavelength” should precede “ppg.” The same should be implemented for “ppg” in line 6 of “vii).” Claim 23 recites “with changes” in line 3 of “ii),” but instead should recite --with the--. This issue is seen throughout the claims and each instance should be amended as such when dependent on claim 23. Claim 23 recites “a subject” in the last line of “ii),” but instead should recite --the subject--. This issue is seen throughout the claims and each instance should be amended as such. Claim 24 recites “(niwA)” in line 5, but should be omitted because “niwA” has already been correlated to a different element. Claim 30 recites “by hemoglobin and water” but instead should be --by the hemoglobin and water--. This issue is seen throughout the claims and should be amended. Claim 31 recites “and light absorption” but instead should be --and the light absorption--. This issue is seen throughout the claims and should be amended. Claim 32 recites “a photoplethysmography sensor” in the last line but instead should be --the photoplethysmography sensor--. Claim 34 recites “obtaining multiwavelength . . . associate with . . . , as indicated by . . . ,” but instead should be -- obtaining the multiwavelength . . . associate with the . . . , as indicated by the . . . ,--. Further clarification required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20, 24-28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “nomogram may include” but is indefinite. The limitation must specify the meets and bounds of the invention. Is the element included or not? Further clarification required.
Claims 24-27 recite “during step (ii)” in line 3, but is indefinite. Multiple “(ii)” steps have been recited in the previous claims, thus, it is not clear which "(ii)" step is being referenced.
Claims 28 recites “wherein the providing step (vi)” in line 3, but is indefinite. Multiple “(vi)” steps have been recited in previous claims, thus, it is not clear which “(vi)” step is being referenced. Further clarification required.
Claim 35 recites “wherein the determining step” in lines 1-2, but is indefinite. What “determining step” is being reference? Further clarification required.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ergo teaches a nomogram for the rapid prediction of blood volume and packed red cell volume appropriate for a given patient's body weight and Hct in both the pediatric and adult populations. A Nomogram for the Rapid Prediction of Hematocrit Following Blood Loss and Fluid Shifts in Neonates, Infants, and Adults
Rosen teaches the development of a nomogram for camonsertib, described here, may instruct early dose adjustments prior to clinically significant anemia development, thereby preventing unscheduled dose holds and transfusions, and improving long-term tolerability. Development of a Practical Nomogram for Personalized Anemia Management in Patients Treated with Ataxia Telangiectasia and Rad3-related Inhibitor Camonsertib
Yang et al. teaches a nomogram to estimate the prognosis of intracerebral hemorrhage in younger adults at 6 months. A 6-month prognostic nomogram incorporating hemoglobin level for intracerebral hemorrhage in younger adults
Andrijauskas teaches a mathematical-physiological model applicable to manually operated nomograms and software in medical monitors. US20110070210
Gravenstein et al. teaches devices for use in determining the concentration of a tissue energy absorber (e.g., hemoglobin) in an individual's blood. An appropriate nomogram is then used to accurately predict and report the calculated absorber concentration value (e.g., the blood total hemoglobin concentration).
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, in combination with the base claim, wherein a reduction in whole body hemoglobin mass is indicated where the first parameter and second parameter fit outside the rhombus shape above the optimal plasma dilution (oPD) as an upper boundary, and/or wherein an increase in whole body hemoglobin mass is indicated where the first parameter and second parameter fit outside the rhombus shape below the dehydrated plasma dilution (dPD) value as a lower boundary.
However, due to the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the claims are not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:10 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791