DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed May 18th, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 14, 18, 27, and 31 have been amended. Claims 40-43 have been added. Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20-21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 are presented for examination.
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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/18/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 05/18/26, with respect to claims 1, 5, 14, 18, 27, and 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 11/18/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 05/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 13-20 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “A. The Amended Claims Recite Programmatic, Computer-Implemented Operations That Cannot Be Performed in the Human Mind”. Specifically, Applicant argues, regarding the amended limitations, “A human being cannot "automatically query" a profile in a data system, "programmatically block" movement of a workflow, load and present discrete workflow steps conditioned upon a query result, or prevent advancement to a subsequent step "without requiring manual confirmation" - all of which are machine operations. The amended claims describe a specific sequence of automated computer- implemented operations that require a data system, a user profile store, and a workflow execution engine. They are no more performable in the human mind than a database query or a conditional branch in software.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the “querying … to determine if the second user’s profile specifies access rights to the second step” is an observation and evaluation of the human mind. Per the as-filed Specification, paragraph [0017] recites “identifying the second user may be performed by identifying, in the profile associated with the second user, that the second user has access rights for the second step”. Therefore, the argued “querying, by the system” is a mere “identification” that the second user has access rights for the second step. Further, the argued “programmatically block” is recited with a high-level of generality such that the execution of the blocking of movement of the workflow is a judgment of the human mind following the determination of user access rights. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “B. The Claims Are Directed to a Practical Application, Namely an Improvement to Chromatography Workflow Technology”. Citing Examiner’s previous argument regarding Applicant’s improved efficiency of the method, Applicant argues the claims “are directed to a specific technical architecture for building and executing chromatography data analysis workflows that incorporates a novel access control mechanism embedded within the workflow structure itself.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting that Applicant has misinterpreted the previous argument. Further, while Applicant argues a “specific technical architecture”, Examiner notes the claimed “a user interface; an audit log; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer; A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. (See PEG 2019). Further, the argued “novel access control mechanism” as described above, merely defines the abstract idea utilizing the above generic computing components. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 14-15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “1. The transition-based access control mechanism is a specific technical solution”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that while Applicant argues that the mechanism “"allow[] the application to keep track of the users responsible for each step and simplif[y] the collection of signatures when moving between steps controlled by different users for an audit trail," and that they "segregate[] steps belonging to different users, allowing for simplified access control so that users cannot access steps that they are not authorized to perform", Examiner asserts that these arguments further outline how the transition-based access control mechanism is directed to the abstract idea of both Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Process as the mechanism “keeps track of the users responsible for each step”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “2. The just-in-time loading mechanism (claim 39) further demonstrates the technical improvement”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as Applicant’s argument refers to a cancelled dependent claim in dependent claim 39, the above argument is moot.
On page 15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “3. The claims are tied to a specific technological environment”. Specifically, Applicant argues “the independent claims are expressly directed to generating a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment (an analytical chemistry technique involving specific laboratory instruments and data types).” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that while the independent claims do recite “receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment” nothing else within the independent claims is specific to the argued “analytical chemistry technique involving specific laboratory instruments and data types”. Examiner asserts that the argued method of the independent claims could be applied to any workflow involving analyzing any results as the steps do not involve any specifics regarding the analytical chemistry technique involving specific laboratory instruments and data types. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On pages 15-16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “C. The Additional Elements, Viewed as an Ordered Combination, Amount to Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea.” Specifically, on page 16 of the provided remarks, following the citing of various claim elements, Applicant argues “this ordered combination is not conventional. The Examiner has not identified any evidence that this particular combination of workflow construction, programmatic access enforcement, and step-by-step custodial handoff was well-known, routine, or conventional in the chromatography data analysis field as of the filing date.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, per MPEP 2106.05(d), “When making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Therefore, Examiner is required to analyze the additional elements of the claim to determine whether or not the claim amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. Examiner asserts that the cited argued limitations noted within the arguments are not solely additional elements and are therefore not included in the analysis regarding whether or not the claim recites significantly more. Additionally, as cited above, Applicant has continued to argued cancelled dependent claim 39, therefore, the argument is moot.
Beginning on page 16, Applicant argues “D. Dependent Claims 39-42 Are Independently Patent-Eligible, Each Reciting a Distinct Technical Improvement to Chromatography Workflow Systems”. On page 17 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that dependent claim 39 is patent eligible. However, as stated above, this dependent claim has been cancelled and therefore the corresponding argument is moot.
On page 18 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that new dependent claim 40 “describes a specific data architecture improvement”. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed “retrieving, from a data store” and “updating a navigation interface with only the retrieved steps” does not recite a “specific data architecture improvement” as the claimed “data store” and “navigation interface” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On pages 18-19 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that new dependent claim 41 recite “a specific technical architecture for data integrity in chromatography laboratory systems”. Specifically, on page 19 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “The read-only constraint on the raw data store after data acquisition is a specific technical measure to enforce data integrity in compliance-driven laboratory environments, and not a mental process or an abstract organizational concept.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued “read-only constraint” is not present within the argued claim 41. The claimed “such that the transition is stored as a particular kind of step within the workflow” does not limit the technical architecture as argued by Applicant. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claimed “wherein the raw data store is configured as read-only after data acquisition to preserve an unmodified audit trail” does not specify the “specific technical measure” as argued by Applicant. Examiner asserts that the claimed configuration of dependent claim 41 merely recites “the same data structure” is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, on pages 19-20 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that dependent claim 42 “describes a specific technical constraint enforcement mechanism tied directly to the science of chromatography data analysis.” Examiner begins by asserting that the argued sequencing constraint is not present within claim 42 but claim 43. Further, Examiner asserts that the claimed “enforcing a predefined ordering for a subset of the plurality of steps” is recited with a high-level of generality such that the enforcing is not limited to a “specific technical constraint enforcement mechanism” as argued by merely implemented by the method of independent claim 1. There is no claimed structure to perform the enforcement argued by Applicant, therefore, the enforcement is a mental judgment of the human mind further defining the abstract idea. The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 20-23, filed 05/18/26, with respect to 1, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20-21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of 11/18/25 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20-21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 are objected to because of the following informalities: the amended limitation of independent claims 1, 14, and 27 beginning “automatically querying” recites “by the system” which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 are objected due to their dependency of independent claims 1, 14, and 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20-21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claims 1, 14, and 27 each recite the phrase “…automatically query, by the system, the profile associated with the second user in a data system to determine if the second user's profile specifies access rights to the second step.” Applicant’s specification discloses “….the workflow builder 602 may query the RESTful endpoint 608 to identify any available pages, and query the HTTP endpoint 610 of the chromatography data system 606 to retrieve images associated with the available pages, as described above.” (See Applicant’s Specification para. 0095). However, the Examiner is unable to find any generic or specific description, algorithm, or steps in the instant specification that show that Applicant was in possession of a technique that shows the automatic querying of a profile associated with the second user to determine if the second user’s profiled specifies access rights to the second step.
Claims 1, 14, and 27 each recite the phrase “… wherein the system presents the first step to the first user and will not advance to load and present the second step until the first user signs off from the first step and the second user is verified to have the access rights to the second step, without requiring manual confirmation”. Applicant’s specification discloses “….At each of the transitions, the application may enforce a change in data stewardship; responsibility for the data may be changed from a group of users associated with the steps before the transition to a group of users associated with the steps after the transition. The application may require that the group of users relinquishing and/or acquiring data access rights provide a signature.” (See Applicant’s Specification para. 0071). However, the Examiner is unable to find any generic or specific description, algorithm, or steps in the instant specification that show that Applicant was in possession of a technique that shows the permission of step display requiring both the first user signs off from the first step and the second user is verified to have the access rights to the second step.
Dependent claim 43 recites the following, “the predefined ordering enforcing a sequencing constraint specific to chromatography data analysis such that integration of mass spectral peaks must precede component identification, which must precede calibration”. Applicant’s specification discloses “….It is noted that the workflow 202 is a specific example of a workflow, and includes particular stages performed in a particular order. However, the present invention is not limited to the specific workflow depicted in FIG. 2. Other suitable workflows may have more, fewer, or different stages performed in different orders.” (See Applicant’s Specification para. 0055 and Figure. 2). However, the Examiner is unable to find any generic or specific description, algorithm, or steps in the instant specification that show that Applicant was in possession of a technique that shows enforcing of a sequence including specifically, integration of mass spectral peaks must precede component identification, which must precede calibration.
A claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Thus, there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
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 1, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20-21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 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.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 27 recite the limitation “…automatically query, by the system, the profile associated with the second user in a data system to determine if the second user's profile specifies access rights to the second step.” It is unclear to Examiner how the “automatic query” is executed as the independent claims do not define the claimed “by the system”. Per [0106] of the as-filed Specification “The system may consult a profile of the current user accessible to the system to ensure that the current user(s) match the authorized list or classes of users.” However, the claimed “system” is not present within the amended independent claims.
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, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20-21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 14 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and 27 (computing apparatus) and dependent claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture), and claim 27 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment; adding a plurality of steps to the workflow, each step being associated with one or more pages representing respective variations of the step; receiving a selection, via a user interface, of a first step of the plurality of steps; receiving a selection, via the user interface, of a page for the first step; assigning the variation represented by the page to the first step; assigning a first access right to the first step and a second access right to a second step of the plurality of steps, each access right comprising a list of users or a class of users authorized to perform the respective step; receiving a selection of a step boundary representing a break between the first step and the second step; adding a transition to the workflow, the transition representing a change in data custody from the first step of the plurality of steps to the second step of the plurality of steps, performing the current step by a first user; reaching the transition; receiving a request from a second user different from the first user to perform the second step; accessing a profile associated with the second user; automatically querying, by the system, the profile associated with the second user in a data system to determine if the second user's profile specifies access rights to the second step; and programmatically blocking movement of the workflow across the transition from the first step to the second step unless the second user is verified to have access rights to the second step based on the result of the query, wherein the system presents the first step to the first user and will not advance to load and present the second step until the first user signs off from the first step and the second user is verified to have the access rights to the second step, without requiring manual confirmation (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are assigning first access rights to a first step and second access rights to a second step of the plurality of steps; adding a transition to the workflow representing a change in custody from the first step of the plurality of steps to a second step of the plurality of steps; and querying if the user is authorized to perform a second step, which is managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are adding a transition to the workflow between users, which recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are generating a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment including assigning first access rights to a first step and second access rights to a second step of the plurality of steps; adding a transition to the workflow representing a change in custody from the first step of the plurality of steps to a second step of the plurality of steps; querying the profile associated with a user to see if the user is authorized to perform a second step; and blocking movement of the workflow across the transition from the first step to the second step unless the second user is verified to have access rights to the second step based on the results of the query, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are generating a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 further narrow the abstract idea and are directed to further defining the execution of the workflow; the subset of plurality of steps; the page configuration; altering steps; updating the navigation interface with only retrieved steps; defining transitions; generating metadata at the first step by processing the raw chromatography data; and enforcing a predefined ordering for a subset of the plurality of steps. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal interactions in addition to mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment; receiving a selection, via a user interface, of a first step of the plurality of steps; receiving a selection, via the user interface, of a page for the first step; receiving a selection of a step boundary representing a break between the first step and the second step; receiving a request from a second user different from the first user to perform the second step; accessing a profile associated with the second user” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a user interface; an audit log; the system; a data system; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer; A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor; a data store; a navigation interface; a raw data store; a metadata catalog; a document store” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 33-34, 37-38 and 40-43 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 5, 8, 11-13, 18, 21, 24-26, 31, 34, 37-38, 41, and 43 additionally recite “logging the first user in an audit log”; “logging the second user in the audit log”; “display data associated with a step corresponding to the page”; “receiving a configuration for the visualization element that controls how the visualization element displays the data”; “receiving a selection of one of the predefined display formats”; “receiving an instruction to move from one of the plurality of steps to another of the plurality of steps in the workflow from an initiating user”; “logging the movement in an audit log”; “receiving an instruction to move from one of the plurality of steps to another of the plurality of steps in the workflow”; “prompting the initiating user to enter a reason for returning to the another one of the plurality of steps”; “logging the reason in the audit log”; “prompting the initiating user to enter a reason for changing the setting”; “logging the reason in the audit log”; “retrieving, from a data store, only the steps within a current sequence bounded by adjacent transitions, without retrieving all steps in the workflow”; “receiving, at the first step, a stream of raw chromatography data stored in a raw data store”; and “storing the metadata in a metadata catalog stored in a document store that is physically distinct from the raw data store” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “user interface, audit log, a data store, a navigation interface, a raw data store, a metadata catalog, a document store” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a user interface; an audit log; the system; a data system; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer; A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor; a data store; a navigation interface; a raw data store; a metadata catalog; a document store” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11-13, and 40-43; non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 14, 18, 20-21, and 24-26; and computing apparatus claims 27, 31, 33-34, and 37-38 recite “a user interface; an audit log; the system; a data system; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer; A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor; a data store; a navigation interface; a raw data store; a metadata catalog; a document store”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0122 and 0124 and Figures 6 & 9. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment; receiving a selection, via a user interface, of a first step of the plurality of steps; receiving a selection, via the user interface, of a page for the first step; receiving a selection of a step boundary representing a break between the first step and the second step; receiving a request from a second user different from the first user to perform the second step; accessing a profile associated with the second user” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 5, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 5, 8, 11-13, 18, 21, 24-26, 31, 34, 37-38, 41, and 43 additionally recite “logging the first user in an audit log”; “logging the second user in the audit log”; “display data associated with a step corresponding to the page”; “receiving a configuration for the visualization element that controls how the visualization element displays the data”; “receiving a selection of one of the predefined display formats”; “receiving an instruction to move from one of the plurality of steps to another of the plurality of steps in the workflow from an initiating user”; “logging the movement in an audit log”; “receiving an instruction to move from one of the plurality of steps to another of the plurality of steps in the workflow”; “prompting the initiating user to enter a reason for returning to the another one of the plurality of steps”; “logging the reason in the audit log”; “prompting the initiating user to enter a reason for changing the setting”; “logging the reason in the audit log”; “retrieving, from a data store, only the steps within a current sequence bounded by adjacent transitions, without retrieving all steps in the workflow”; “receiving, at the first step, a stream of raw chromatography data stored in a raw data store”; and “storing the metadata in a metadata catalog stored in a document store that is physically distinct from the raw data store” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “user interface, audit log, a data store, a navigation interface, a raw data store, a metadata catalog, a document store” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 18, 20-21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-43 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the closest prior art (i.e. Chakravarty (U.S 2008/0040191 A1)) and subsequent prior art made of record discloses receiving an instruction to generate a workflow for analyzing results of a chromatography experiment; adding a plurality of steps to the workflow, each step being associated with one or more pages representing respective variations of the step; receiving a selection, via a user interface, of a first step of the plurality of steps to be edited; receiving a selection, via the user interface, of a page for the selected first step; assigning the variation represented by the page to the first step; assigning a first access right to the first step and a second access right to a second step of the plurality of steps, each access right comprising a list of users or a class of users authorized to perform the respective step a respective step; receiving a selection of a step boundary representing a break between the first step and the second step; adding a transition to the workflow, the transition representing a change in data custody from the first step of the plurality of steps to the second step of the plurality of steps; performing the current step the first step by a first user; reaching the transition; receiving a request from the second user different from the first user to perform the second step; accessing a profile associated with the second user, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: automatically querying, by the system, the profile associated with the second user in a data system to determine if the second user's profile specifies access rights to the second step: and programmatically blocking movement of the workflow across the transition from the first step to the second step unless the second user is verified to have access rights to the second step based on the result of the query, wherein the system presents the first step to the first user and will not advance to load and present the second step until the first user signs off from the first step and the second user is verified to have the access rights to the second step, without requiring manual confirmation.
However, the present claims are not in condition for allowance because the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 101, as well as objected, as set forth in the current office action. Therefore, the claims are not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
World Health Organization. "Good chromatography practices." WHO Drug Information 33.2 (2019): 179-193.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 20130035976 A1
Buffett, Scott
PROCESS MINING FOR ANOMALOUS CASES
EP 2316094A2
Malaviarachchi et al.
Workflow based authorization for content access
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 KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights