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 Status
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the parameters consist at least one of a parameter which is necessary for understanding the state of the chromatograph” is not grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation "the parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this refers to “each of the one or more parameters” or different parameters. Claims 2-6 are rejected as well for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an input”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term has previously been defined; it is not clear if this is the same or different input.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a chromatograph comprising a plurality of analysis units including a column configured to separate sample components; a storage section configured to store a plurality of items concerning the state of the chromatograph and a relationship between one or more parameters corresponding to each of the plurality of items; an item input receiver configured to receive an input of one of the plurality of items by a user; a parameter value collector configured to collect a value of each of the one or more parameters corresponding to the item inputted from the item input receiver from the analysis units of the chromatograph at a timing of the input by the user based on the relationship stored in the storage section; and a parameter value outputter configured to output the collected value of the each of the one or more parameters in a predetermined form wherein the parameter consist at least one of a parameter which is necessary for understanding the state of the chromatograph.
The limitation of “a parameter value collector configured to collect a value of each of the one or more parameters corresponding to the item inputted from the item input receiver…based on the relationship stored in the storage section” is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). See also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), if applicant is merely claiming a concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
In Claim 1, the parameter value collector is an evaluation tool, or a look-up table, that collects a value of one or more of the parameters based on a relationship between the parameter and each of the plurality of items stored in the storage section. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions”. Claims 2-6 are directed to different requirements for inputting or outputting information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations of “a parameter value collector configured to collect a value of each of the one or more parameters corresponding to the item inputted from the item input receiver…based on the relationship stored in the storage section” and “wherein the parameters consist at least one of a parameter which is necessary for understanding the state of the chromatograph” are recited at a high level and is directed to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Furthermore, when the value of the parameter is collected from the analysis units of the chromatograph at a timing of the input by the user, the only action that is taken is that a parameter value outputter is configured to output the collected value of the parameter in a predetermined form (Claim 1), which is a form of a two-dimensional code or a form that can be read through a short-range wireless communication (Claims 2 and 5). However, there is no apparatus that is configured to accomplish a task related to outputting the value of the parameter. As such, this limitation related to the parameter value outputter reinforces that the judicial exception is used to look-up the state of the chromatograph and provide information about the operating state, which is only generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, the storage section and the parameter value collector appear to be part of a controller, which is a general purpose computer, but not a particular machine. See MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed chromatograph includes a “plurality of analysis units including a column configured to separate sample components”. However, generic analysis units and a chromatography column are routine and conventional in the art.
The invention as disclosed in the instant specification appears directed to an improvement in the art, e.g., the present invention provides a technique which allows even unskilled operators to easily obtain values of the parameters that are necessary for understanding the state of the analyzing device ([0007]). However, Claim 1 is directed to gathering information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to a technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II). Furthermore, the claims are directed to collecting a value of a single parameter, such that it does not appear that the claim is directed to a user understanding the state of the analyzing device as a whole. As a result, Claims 1-6 are not patent eligible.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because limitations are directed towards insignificant extra solution activity; are well understood, routine, or conventional activities previously known in the industry; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.05(d), (g), (h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Agilent 7890A Gas Chromatograph.
It is noted that claims 1-6 are directed to a chromatograph, which does not clearly set forth the statutory category to which the invention belongs to. It has been determined that the claims are directed to an apparatus and the appropriate principles for interpreting claims for that particular category of invention have been applied.
Regarding limitations recited in the claims which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed chromatograph, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). This applies to the following limitations: “configured to separate sample components”; “configured to store a plurality of items concerning the state of the chromatograph and a relationship between one or more parameters corresponding to each of the plurality of items”; “configured to receive an input of one of the plurality of items by a user”; “configured to collect a value of each of the one or more parameters corresponding to the item inputted from the item input receiver from the analysis units of the chromatograph at a timing of the input by the user on the relationship stored in the storage section”; “configured to output the collected value of each of the one or more parameters in a predetermined form”; “configured to display the item”; “configured to receive an input of the item based on an operation of selecting the item through the display unit”; “configured to output information including the collected value of the parameter and a uniform resource locator pointing to a location on a server prepared beforehand”; “configured to output a value of the parameter by a plurality of two-dimensional codes”; “configured to notify of an occurrence of an error when an error occurs in the chromatograph”; “configured to receive an input of an item related to the error, based on the occurrences of the error”.
In regard to claim 1, Agilent teahces a chromatograph (pg. 32-39). Agilent teaches a plurality of analysis units including a column (pg. 34-35, Table 1, column configuration); capable of separating sample components. Agilent teaches a storage section (pg. 373; pg. 385); capable of storing a plurality of items concerning the state of the chromatograph and a relationship between one or more parameters corresponding to each of the plurality of items. Agilent teahces an input receiver (pg. 34-35, Table 1, front inlet); capable of receiving an input of one of the plurality of items by a user. Agilent teahces a parameter value collector (pg. 34-35, Table 1, front detector); capable of collecting a value of each of the one or more parameters corresponding to the item inputted from the item input receiver from the analysis units of the chromatograph at a timing of the input by the user based on the relationship stored in the storage section. Agilent teaches a parameter value outputter (pg. 76); capable of outputting the collected value of the each of the one or more parameters in a predetermined form. Agilent teaches the parameters consist of at least one of a parameter which is necessary for understanding the state of the chromatograph (pg. 32-39; pg. 373; pg. 385).
In regard to claim 2, Agilent teahces a two-dimensional code (pg. 111).
In regard to claim 3, Agilent teahces a display unit (pg. 26-27); capable of displaying the item.
In regard to claim 4, Agilent teahces a server (pg. 65).
In regard to claim 5, Agilent teahces a plurality of two-dimensional codes (pg. 111).
In regard to claim 6, Agilent teahces an error notifier (pg. 119); capable of notifying of an occurrence of an error when an error occurs in the chromograph. Agilent teaches the item input receiver is capable of receiving an input of an item related to the error based on the occurrence of the error (pg. 119).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the Applicant’s argument the limitation “the parameters consist at least one of a parameter which is necessary for understanding the state of the chromatograph” specifies the parameter is never obtained in the mind; the process of “collect[ing]…user” is not a mental process performed in the mind; the parameter value collector of amended claim 1 does not read a value by simply referencing pre-prepared information and is not an evaluation tool or lookup table; the clams are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea; the claimed chromatograph is able to collect and output the appropriate parameter so that the operator can quickly determine how to deal with the irregular problem and is directed to an improvement to a practical application, the Examiner does not find this persuasive.
A user is using the parameter value collector as an evaluation tool to look-up the value of the parameter based on the relationship stored in the storage section between the parameter and each of the plurality of items. As stated above, if applicant is merely claiming a concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Furthermore, the limitations in Claims 1, 2, and 5 related to the parameter value outputter reinforce that the judicial exception is used to look-up the state of the chromatograph and provide information about the operating state, which is only generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claims do not require “quickly determine how to deal with the irregular problem”. Furthermore, this would be directed towards insignificant extra solution activity.
Claims 1-6 are still subject to rejections under 35 USC 101 for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/KARA M PEO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777