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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-21 remain pending. Applicant amended independent claims 1, 8, 9, 15 and 16.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 27, 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the patentability of the claim have been considered but they are moot. The amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth below.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The scope of the recitation “the autonomous service is independent of other services for its functionality and refrains from synchronously assisting other services” is indefinite. The recitation is replete with vague terminologies (“other services”; “functionality”; “synchronously assisting”) that are not defined in the specification. In fact, the specification is devoid of context that would enable one to determine the scope of the recitation. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the recitation cannot be ascertained (e.g. what is considered “other services”?; what constitutes “functionality”?). For purposes of examination, each limitation in the recitation will be subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houstis, “Towards a Next Generation of Open Scientific Data Repositories and Services” (see IDS) in view of Ghosh (US 2011/0055194 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Houstis discloses a method comprising (see Fig. 4, p. 123 and annotated Figure 4 below):
receiving, at an endpoint interface (website) (see section 4.5, p. 124) of an autonomous service (search engine) (see Fig. 4) in a scientific data processing environment (see abstract, p. 111 disclosing the application of the method), a request (user queries) for raw data (see annotated Figure 4) acquired by a scientific instrument (see abstract), where the environment exposes multiple endpoint interfaces (different search engines, program);
identifying a decoder (translator) configured to interpret the raw data that is associated with the endpoint interface;
retrieving the requested raw data from a raw data store (see annotated Figure 4); and
applying the decoder to the raw data to generate decoded data and returning the decoded data (see two-way arrow connecting raw data to translator).
The method taught by Houstis differs from the claimed invention in that Houstis does not explicitly disclose that the raw data is acquired by a chromatography instrument. In addition, Houstis does not explicitly disclose that the autonomous service providing the endpoint interface is independent of other services for its functionality and refrains from synchronously assisting other services.
Regarding the data acquired by a chromatography instrument, given that the method applies to organizing and disseminating collections of scientific data (see abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to applied the method to data acquired by any and all scientific instruments, including chromatography instruments.
Regarding the nature of the autonomous service, Ghosh discloses a search engine (see abstract) that employs asynchronous crawling (as opposed to synchronous crawling), so as to preserve security within its system and cause minimal runtime overhead to the system (see [0016]). In light of the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an endpoint interface of a search engine that refrains from synchronously assisting other services. If the modification is made, then the method would use an endpoint interface of an autonomous service that is independent of other services for its functionality and refrains from synchronously assisting other services.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the autonomous service is a first autonomous service (search engine) configured to interface with the raw data store (see Fig. 4), and a second autonomous service (program, see Fig. 4 and p. 120 disclosing “programs can be put at the end of pipelines to present the result to the user”) that can interface with a metadata catalog storing metadata that describes how the raw data was acquired (see p. 121 disclosing “free-format information can also be searched by the computer programs”). Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have interfaced the second autonomous service with a metadata catalog.
With respect to claim 3, the endpoint interface (website of a search engine) is a first endpoint interface and is configured to receive requests for raw data, and as discussed above (see rejection of claim 2), the method would further comprise using a second endpoint interface (program) to receive requests for metadata that describes how the raw data was acquired.
With respect to claim 4, the decoder (translator) is associated with multiple different endpoint interfaces (see Fig. 4 illustrating one translator associated with search engine and program).
With respect to claim 5, the subject matter of the claim is a product-by-process claim in that the claim recites how or where the raw data originates. Such recitation does not further limit the nature of the raw data (raw data is defined by its information, not from which it originates), and hence it does not further limit the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that the method taught by Houstis is designed to manage collection of data to be accessed by users all over the world (see abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stored raw data originating from different chromatography apparatuses.
With respect to claim 6, the raw data store includes data of a plurality of different data types (see Figure 1 illustrating different data collections);
the autonomous service is one of a plurality of autonomous services (see Figure 4 illustrating search engine and program); and
the plurality of autonomous services are collectively configured to decode the plurality of different data types (see arrows in Figure 4).
With respect to claim 7, the claim is directed to subject matter that is not part of the claimed invention. According to claim 6, the method involves only one autonomous service (see “the autonomous service is one of…”). The plurality of autonomous services are mentioned in the claim to merely identify a group to which said one autonomous service belongs. Consequently, claim 7 further limiting the plurality of autonomous services does not further limit the claimed invention. Nevertheless, the plurality of autonomous services collectively include a plurality of endpoint interfaces (e.g. website for search engines and programs), each endpoint interface characterized by a data type (data requested by user).
With respect to claim 8, the method taught by Houstis is conducted by a network of computers and servers (see Fig. 4). Naturally, the method is conducted by a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method discussed above (see rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 9, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 2), the autonomous service is a first autonomous service and is configured to interface with the raw data store, and the instructions would further configure the computer to access a second autonomous service configured to interface with a metadata catalog storing metadata that describes how the raw data was acquired.
With respect to claim 10, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 3), the endpoint interface is a first endpoint interface and is configured to receive requests for raw data, and the instructions would further configure the computer to access a second endpoint interface configured to receive requests for metadata that describes how the raw data was acquired.
With respect to claim 11, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 4), the decoder is associated with multiple different endpoint interfaces.
With respect to claim 12, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 5), the subject matter of the claim is a product-by-process claim in that the claim recites how or where the raw data originates. Such recitation does not further limit the nature of the raw data (raw data is defined by its information, not from which it originates), and hence it does not further limit the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that the medium taught by Houstis is designed to manage collection of data to be accessed by users all over the world (see abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store raw data originating from different chromatography apparatuses.
With respect to claim 13, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 6), the raw data store includes data of a plurality of different data types,
the autonomous service is one of a plurality of autonomous services; and
the plurality of autonomous services are collectively configured to decode the plurality of different data types.
With respect to claim 14, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 7), the claim is directed to subject matter that is not part of the claimed invention. According to claim 13, the invention involves only one autonomous service (see “the autonomous service is one of…”). The plurality of autonomous services are mentioned in the claim to merely identify a group to which said one autonomous service belongs. Consequently, claim 14 further limiting the plurality of autonomous services does not further limit the claimed invention. Nevertheless, the plurality of autonomous services collectively include a plurality of endpoint interfaces (e.g. display/keyboard or search engines and programs), each endpoint interface characterized by a data type (data requested by user).
With respect to claim 15, the method taught by Houstis is conducted by a network of computers and servers (see Fig. 4). Naturally, the modified method would be conducted by a computing apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to carry out the modified method discussed above (see rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 16, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 2), the autonomous service is a first autonomous service and is configured to interface with the raw data store, and the instructions would further configure the computer to access a second autonomous service configured to interface with a metadata catalog storing metadata that describes how the raw data was acquired.
With respect to claim 17, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 3), the endpoint interface is a first endpoint interface and is configured to receive requests for raw data, and the instructions would further configure the computer to connect to a second endpoint interface configured to receive requests for metadata that describes how the raw data was acquired.
With respect to claim 18, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 4), the decoder is associated with multiple different endpoint interfaces.
With respect to claim 19, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 5), the subject matter of the claim is a product-by-process claim in that the claim recites how or where the raw data originates. Such recitation does not further limit the nature of the raw data (raw data is defined by its information, not from which it originates), and hence it does not further limit the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that the medium taught by Houstis is designed to manage collection of data to be accessed by users all over the world (see abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store raw data originating from different chromatography apparatuses.
With respect to claim 20, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 6), the raw data store includes data of a plurality of different data types,
the autonomous service is one of a plurality of autonomous services; and
the plurality of autonomous services are collectively configured to decode the plurality of different data types.
With respect to claim 21, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 7), the claim is directed to subject matter that is not part of the claimed invention. According to claim 20, the invention involves only one autonomous service (see “the autonomous service is one of…”). The plurality of autonomous services are mentioned in the claim to merely identify a group to which said one autonomous service belongs. Consequently, claim 21 further limiting the plurality of autonomous services does not further limit the claimed invention. Nevertheless, the plurality of autonomous services collectively include a plurality of endpoint interfaces (e.g. display and keyboard), each endpoint interface characterized by a data type (data requested by user).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record because it is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Manfredi (US 2006/0247878 A1)
Nagral et al. (US 7,143,109 B2)
Moore (US 2007/0061393 A1)
Lupu et al. (US 2012/0254872 A1)
Bowen et a. (US 2014/0164444 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796