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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 6/18/2021, 7/13/2021, 10/14/2021, 6/22/2023, and 11/128/2023 have been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to JP2018-238829 filed 12/20/2018.
Status of Claims
Amendments to the claims are acknowledged. Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-18, 20-22 are under examination.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 19 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection over claim 20 for being drawn to a signal is withdrawn in view of Amendments filed 10/17/2025.
The instant rejection is maintained from the Office Action of 7/23/2025 and modified in view of Amendments filed 10/17/2025.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-17 are drawn to an apparatus, so a machine.
Claim 18 is drawn to a method, so a process.
Claim 20 is drawn to a computer readable storage medium.
Step 2A Prong One: Identification of an Abstract Idea
The claim(s) recite(s)
1. generating a learning model utilizing input spectral information wherein the spectral information is a chromatogram.
This limitation reads on a process that can be performed by the human mind. Generating a learning model reads on organizing mathematical relationships or rules that can be analyzed with the human mind. The step is therefore an abstract idea.
2. estimating quantitative information of a test substance utilizing the learning model.
This step reads on a process that can be performed by the human mind. Using a learning model to estimate information reads on solving mathematical relationships or analyzing rules that can be assessed with the human mind. The step is therefore an abstract idea.
3. acquiring reliability of the quantitative information on the test substance.
This step reads on a process that can be performed by the human mind by considering reliability of the quantitative information and thereby acquiring the reliability. The step is therefore an abstract idea.
4. The reliability is acquired by using a retention time identified on the basis of the spectral information of the sample and a retention time identified on the basis of the spectral information of the test substance.
This step reads on a process of considering retention time with the human mind and determining a reliability through a mental process, based on retention time. The step is therefore an abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8-18, and 20-22 further recite limitations describing the information in the acquiring steps and further limitations of the acquiring and are therefore drawn to the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Consideration of Practical Application
The claims result in displaying quantitative and reliability information on a display portion and do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Displaying the results of an abstract idea is extra solution activity as explained in MPEP 2106.05(g).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Step 2B: Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claimed method also recites "additional elements" that are not limitations drawn to an abstract idea. The recited additional elements are drawn to:
1. a processor, memory, and display portion, as in claims 1 and 21.
2. inputting spectral information and displaying, as in claim 1, 18 and 21.
3. analysis by the methods of claim 14, e.g. chromatography, as in claims 13-14.
4. a computer readable medium, as in claim 20.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because performing analysis of a sample by the technology of claims 13-14 such as chromatography is routine, conventional and well understood. Other elements of the method include a processor, memory and display which is a recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea recited in the instantly presented claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue (Remarks, page 10) that the Office took the position that the claims are interpreted as including means-plus-function elements.
In response, this position was taken under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) and does not relate to the analysis set forth above under 35 USC 101.
Applicants argue (Remarks, page 10) that the claims have been amended to include structural elements such that the alleged abstract idea is implemented in a practical application.
In response, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Categories of practical application are listed above under Step 2A Prong Two. The recited “structural elements” pertain to performing abstract ideas on a generic computing device which is insufficient to render any judicial exception as statutory. See MPEP 2016.04 and 2106.05.
Applicants argue that the claims are directed to processes performed by a computer process and the claimed elements improve the computer by generating the learning model using inputted information and then displaying the quantitative information.
In response, the claimed computer processor is a generic computer that implements the generation of a learning model which reads on a mathematical model and further performs the abstract ideas of determining reliability of information about a test substance. The generic processor operates in the conventional and well-known way that computers ordinary function. To qualify as “a patent- eligible improvement,” the invention must be directed to a specific improvement in the computer’s functionality, not simply to use of the computer “as a tool” to implement an abstract idea. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1363-1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Here, the invention falls into the latter category. It focuses on using a general purpose computer to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are therefore not directed to improvement in computer technology. Instead, the claims lack any physical or structural component that integrates the judicial exceptions of the abstract idea into any practical application that improves the processing apparatus itself, the processor itself, or any particular device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112-1st paragraph
The rejection of claims 1-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 10/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112-2nd paragraph
The rejection of claims 1-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 10/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Izumi et al. (US 2019/0267222) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna Skibinsky whose telephone number is (571) 272-4373. The examiner can normally be reached on 12 pm - 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ram Shukla can be reached on (571) 272-7035. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anna Skibinsky/
Primary Examiner, AU 1635