DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A waveform processing assistance device including a processor that assists processing by a user of a waveform data piece representing an analysis result of an analysis device,
wherein the processor
acquires a first waveform data piece and a second waveform data piece from the analysis device and stores the acquired first waveform data piece and the acquired second waveform data piece under a same analysis condition, the first waveform data piece having a first peak representing a certain component, the second waveform data piece having a second peak representing a certain component,
extracts a first peak feature amount and a second peak feature amount of the first peak by applying a first waveform processing parameter and a second waveform processing parameter to the first waveform data piece,
determines the second peak corresponding to the first peak in the second waveform data piece,
extracts a third peak feature amount and a fourth peak feature amount of the second peak by applying the first waveform processing parameter and the second waveform processing parameter to the second waveform data piece,
calculates a variation of the first peak feature amount and the third peak feature amount as a degree of first reproducibility of the first waveform processing parameter,
calculates a variation of the second peak feature amount and the fourth peak feature amount as a degree of second reproducibility of the second waveform processing parameter, and
creates an analysis method file including the first waveform processing parameter in a case where the degree of the first reproducibility is higher than the degree of the second reproducibility.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the processor, i.e. a computer, does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The additional limitations of causing a display to display the results of the abstract idea equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data reporting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations, and/or further define the type of data acquired and being evaluated by the abstract idea, i.e. extrasolution data activity. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Applicant argues that the claim recites an improvement to a technical field. Applicant supports this argument indicating that the result of the calculation is utilized for a specific "improvement of setting (optimization of parameters)" similarly to the case of claim 3 of Example 47 (Anomaly Detection) (i.e., dropping packets based on a result of anomaly detection to improve security). Applicant also indicates that the generating of an optimal operation command/method file is to be used by an analysis device in a future analysis.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Example 47, claim 3, contained steps (d) and (f) which tied the abstract idea to a practical application. Steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). Upon the detection of a malicious network packet, the system actively dropped the malicious network packets in real time and blocked further traffic from the source address. The claim initiates actions to that improve network security.
In this instance, the current set of claims do include any active step that improve network security. The claim does not actively block any harmful communications. Rather, as argued by the applicant, it creates a file that may be used in future analysis.
The current set of claims equate to selecting a parameter value that produces a higher degree of reproducibility. The argued analysis method file is broadly recited, and can be equated to the creation, selection, or storage of a parameter value. As indicated, the parameter is selected based on calculations and a comparison, i.e. mathematical and mental steps. The step of creating an analysis method file, i.e. choosing the first waveform processing parameter, based on the determined reproducibility values is part of the abstract idea of the claimed invention, i.e. another algorithm step performed by the computer. Furthermore, storing the optimal parameter in a file could also be considered insignificant post solution data activity such as saving the parameter in a database/file.
Applicant argues that the claim is similar to example patent eligible claim 40, that collects Netflow protocol data when collected traffic data is greater than a predefined threshold. Applicant supports this argument that their device only creates a file by adopting a parameter with high reproducibility rather a merely outputting all results of the calculation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The current set of claims do not perform any adaptive monitoring. The result of the abstract idea is not used to modify any active monitoring system. The result of the abstract idea is not utilized in a practical application subsequent to its determination.
Applicant argues that the claims converting a calculated abstract value, reproducibility into ta specific control of the analysis device, including a chromatograph when performing sample analysis.
The examiner respectfully disagrees as the argued practical application is not recited in the claimed invention. The claim only creates the file/control, but not actively utilize the file/control in a practical manner. The claim does not recite a chromatograph performing analysis of a sample using the newly configured control file.
Applicant supports this argument indicating that the control file is a physical operation form that is a specific device setting similar to claim 3 of example 47.
As indicated above, the claim lacks the protection limitations that make example 47 patent eligible. Furthermore, the claim does not tie the argued control file to a specific device, such as the previously discussed chromatograph apparatus.
Applicant further argues that the claims are patent eligible because they recite an inventive concept, similar to the improved speech separation example.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Synopsys v Mentor Graphics held that a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea and that the search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty (SYNOPSYS, INC. v. 2 MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION (CAFC Decided October 17, 2016). Furthermore, the current set of claims do not even recite what type of data is being analyzed or how it is improved.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakayama (US 20150081250) discloses a method and system for analyzing collected data using waveform processing parameters such as slope and width.
Qunhua (Measuring reproducibility of high-throughput experiments) discloses determined a reproducibility score related to different peak analysis algorithms.
Artimovich (PeakCaller: an automated graphical interface for the quantification of intracellular calcium obtained by high-content screening) discloses an interface designed to display configured to display values of waveform processing parameters.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857