"We usually dont see in non-final rejection

so many claim are under attack by examiner . Most likely they have major issues related to

prior art."

Most definitely about the prior art.

claim 1, as the main claim, is initially attacked and said to be un-patentable by the examiner.....because of prior art 1

The other subsequent claims, as practiced under claim 1 (found to be un-patentable) because of prior arts, are then independently considered against yet other prior art issues, 2,3,4 and found to be un-patentable. There are 4 prior arts considered under the prosecution of the application.

I don't know what language they can come up with to get claim 1 back into condition....that will justify and allow the subsequent claims....????

It's why I commented, if they want to keep it alive they have their work cut out for them.

anyway...as for...

"We usually don't see in non-final rejection so many claim are under attack by examiner"

I watched Gurries argue his considerations for e.Digitals re exam of 774 / 737. Claim 1 of 747 and subsequent claim terms along with other claims where found to be un-patentable in non finals twice and a final rejection before the patent was re-certified with amendment.

Thing is, e.Digitals was over language and understanding and not prior art.

The recent non-final for e.Digital on the nunchi patent has most, if not all of the claims rejected.
They get them through, just not exactly with the considerations they would like.

doni