CTNF 17/609,622 CTNF 100626 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-42-04 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/13/2026 has been entered and considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous office action mailed 1/13/2026 are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either newly applied or are reiterated and are the only rejections and/or objections presently applied to the instant application. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 pending and examined on the merits. Claims 5-6 and 12-13 cancelled. Priority The instant application filed on 11/8/2021 is a 371 national stage entry of PCT/JP2020/018586 having an international filing date of 5/7/2020, and claims the benefit of priority to foreign priority to Patent Application No. JP2019-089616 filed on 5/10/2019. Thus, the effective filing date of the claims is 5/10/2019. The applicant is reminded that amendments to the claims and specification must comply with 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121 to maintain priority to an earlier-filed application. Claim amendments may impact the effective filing date if new subject matter is introduced that lacks support in the originally filed disclosure. If an amendment adds limitations that were not adequately described in the parent application, the claim may no longer be entitled to the priority date of the earlier filing. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 5/1/2026 has been entered and considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-4, 7-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea: Claim 1 and 8: “acquiring first identification information corresponding to the identified analyte and assigned in an external literature database based on the received analytical data” provides an evaluation (acquiring "first identification information" involves evaluating and comparing the received analytical data to the information of the “external literature database") that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. “acquiring from the literature database, in response to acquisition of the first identification information, a co-occurrence data file indicating co-occurrence frequency of terms appearing simultaneously within each of a plurality of literatures” provides an evaluation (acquiring "a co-occurrence data file" involves evaluating and comparing frequency of terms) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. “extracting a related term related to the identified analyte by performing an association analysis using the co-occurrence frequency on the acquired co-occurrence data file to calculate a statistical correlation between a term corresponding to the first identification information and candidate terms appearing simultaneously” provides a mathematical calculation (calculating a statistical correlation) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea. Claim 2 and 9: “extracting a related term commonly related to the plurality of pieces of first identification information” provides an evaluation (extracting related terms involves evaluating relatedness between information) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. Claim 3 and 10: “extracting the related term on a basis of both the first identification information and the second identification information” provides an evaluation (extracting related terms involves evaluating relatedness between information) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. Claim 7 and 14: “extracting the related term according to a rule that adopts at least one of a confidence level, a support level, and a lift value in the association analysis” provides an evaluation (extracting related terms according to a rule involves evaluating rule metrics) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or are mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Additionally, while claims 1-8 recite performing some aspects of the analysis on “An analytical device, comprising: an information acquisition unit [...] an inquiry unit [...]; an extraction unit [...]; and a presentation unit” (and described in the instant specification para.0018), there are no additional limitations that indicate that this requires anything other than carrying out the recited mental processes or mathematical concepts in a generic computer environment or on a generic analytical device. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES). Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exceptions listed above are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflects an improvement to technology. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements: Claim 1: “An analytical device, comprising: an information acquisition unit [...] an inquiry unit [...]; an extraction unit [...]; and a presentation unit” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (running instructions on generic computer components as described in the specification in para.0018 that lists: a terminal device, a personal computer, a generic "analyzer", all with storage devices and internet connections) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 1 and 8: “receiving analytical data via a communication line from an external source comprising at least one of an analyzer and a terminal device, the analytical data being generated based on a measurement parameter derived from an output signal of the analyzer produced by measuring an analyte, the analytical data identifying the analyte” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (measuring and receiving analytical data is a pre-solution activity involving data gathering and manipulation steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. “presenting the extracted related term to a user” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (presenting data is a post-solution activity involving data gathering and manipulation steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 3 and 10: “receiving an input of second identification information from a user” AE; provides insignificant extra-solution activities (receiving input data is a pre-solution activity involving data gathering and manipulation steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The steps for measuring, receiving, and presenting data are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application because they are pre- and post-solution activities involving data gathering and manipulation steps (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). Furthermore, the limitations regarding implementing program instructions do not indicate that they require anything other than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. As such, this limitation equates to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO). Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. As discussed above, there are no additional elements to indicate that the claimed “An analytical device, comprising: an information acquisition unit [...] an inquiry unit [...]; an extraction unit [...]; and a presentation unit” requires anything other than generic computer and analytical device components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims. Additionally, the limitations for measuring, receiving, and presenting data are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Furthermore, no inventive concept is claimed by these limitations as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 are not patent eligible. Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101 07-37 Applicant’s arguments filed 4/13/2026 are fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that "the amended claims do not include elements that are directed to an abstract idea and, even if they were found to include elements directed to an abstract idea, the claimed subject matter represents a patent-eligible practical application that provides an inventive concept" because the amended claims "set forth a series of operations that are physically and technically tied to the interaction between analytical hardware and complex database structures" (Remarks 4/13/2026 pages 2-4 and 6). Applicant also asserts that "the identified claim elements are not mere insignificant pre- and post-solution activities and instead enable the analytical device to link otherwise fragmented scientific knowledge (Remarks 4/13/2026 page 5). Examiner notes that the series of operations are extra-solution activities involving data gathering and manipulation and therefore do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a patent-eligible application (as detailed above). The Examiner also notes that MPEP 2106(I) states that if the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). In the “search for an ‘inventive concept’” (the second part of the Alice/Mayo test), the additional elements identified do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception because measuring, receiving, and presenting data (data gathering and manipulation steps) are all well-understood, routine, and conventional techniques that are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Therefore, combining insignificant extra-solution activities with any of the identified judicial exceptions would not result in patent eligible subject matter because integrating well-understood, routine, and conventional techniques does not yield “significantly more” to a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon. Applicant also asserts that "embodiments of the present claims apply association analysis to 'co-occurrence frequency' data files to achieve an efficient and objective extraction of knowledge" which is "a specific implementation that improves the technology of automated literature mining and analytical data interpretation" (Remarks 4/13/2026 pages 5). Examiner notes that there are no explicit limitations in the claims that convey an improved data structure of said "co-occurrence frequency data files", and according to Figure 7 which is an example of a result of the association analysis, these are merely the output of the statistical correlation calculation judicial exception, and are in no particular novel structure (i.e. are represented in a simple table of data which may be formatted as a TSV, CSV, etc.), therefore no improvement to technology is apparent in the amended claims. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as detailed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 7-11, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark et al. (International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 389 (2015): 26-38) in view of Krallinger et al. (Chemical reviews 117.12 (2017): 7673-7761) . Regarding independent claims 1 and 8 , Stark teaches receiving analytical data via a communication line from an external source comprising at least one of an analyzer and a terminal device, the analytical data being generated based on a measurement parameter derived from an output signal of the analyzer produced by measuring an analyte, the analytical data identifying the analyte (Page 11 col 2 last paragraph "First, a method for peak identification is developed to provide the best formulas incorporating all known constraints. The method starts with two algorithms to calculate all possible chemical formulas and to separately identify possible peak positions in the multi-peak systems encountered in a mass spectrum. The chemical space and the peak positions in a mass spectrum are then combined by an iterative assignment process to obtain an optimum list of formulas to be used for quantitative fitting of the mass spectrum. [...]. The number of peaks that can be constrained is much lower than the number of chemically possible formulas"). Stark also teaches acquiring first identification information corresponding to the identified analyte and assigned in an external literature database based on the received analytical data (Page 12 col 1 paragraph 2 "Second, we introduce a method of deriving bulk chemical information from the spectra. This method uses the results of the peak identification and fitting methods. Simulations using synthetic data were conducted to validate this bulk method. While not all peaks from the simulation input are retrieved correctly by the speciated method, we show that bulk chemical information, such as oxidation state, carbon number and functions thereof, can be quantitatively determined using the results of the peak identification and fitting methods"). Stark does not explicitly teach: acquiring from the literature database, in response to acquisition of the first identification information, a co-occurrence data file indicating co-occurrence frequency of terms appearing simultaneously within each of a plurality of literatures; extracting a related term related to the identified analyte by performing an association analysis using the co-occurrence frequency on the acquired co-occurrence data file to calculate a statistical correlation between a term corresponding to the first identification information and candidate terms appearing simultaneously; nor presenting the extracted related term to a user. However, Krallinger teaches various file formats for encoding atom properties that may be retrieved, as well as a co-occurrence score for entities that may be ranked (Page 50 section 4.4.2 described various file formats for encoding atom properties, and page 58 col 1 last paragraph "To score the strength of entity co-occurrence, the typical measures used are the absolute frequency of co-occurrence, the Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI), and Symmetric Conditional Probability. (708-710) Co-occurrence frequency-based statistics can be used to rank individual relationships"). Krallinger also teaches “relationship extraction strategies” implementing co-occurrence approaches using several methods (Page 57 col 2 first paragraph "Relation extraction (RE) strategies are very heterogeneous and are normally restricted by the underlying domain and complexity of the relationship categories. RE can be addressed through co-occurrence (comention)-based methods, pattern and/or rule-based approaches, ML-based techniques, methods exploiting syntactic parsing, or hybrid approaches consisting of combinations of multiple strategies"). Krallinger also teaches many ways of presenting extracted information (Page 65 col 2 paragraph 2 highlights several ways of displaying related term results: "At a first glance, TM [text mining] outputs are sometimes seen as simple frequency statistics of annotated terms, where wordclouds are a commonly used way to display how many times each term is occurring in the text or document collection. In turn, graphs are a powerful means of characterization of term representativeness as well term co-occurrence associations, or some other form of correlation. For instance, graph nodes (i.e., annotations) can be adjusted in size according to their annotation frequency, and two chemicals that co-occur very frequently should be connected using a thicker edge"). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Stark as taught by Krallinger in order to pull terms ("elemental parameters") while spectra are being acquired (Stark page 12 col 2 paragraph 3 "Finally, we make use of the relationship between mass defect and bulk chemical parameters to develop a second method in which bulk composition parameters are determined without any peak assignment or fitting. Again, comparison to simulated data allows validation of this method. It shows slightly higher uncertainty than the assignment and fitting method, but has the advantage that it can be used for rapid determination of elemental parameters, for example as an online method to get chemical information while the spectra are being acquired"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both methods are concerned with matching mass spectra and associated terms between a query and database. Regarding claims 2 and 9 , Stark in view of Krallinger teach the methods of Claims 1 and 8 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Stark also teaches the first identification information corresponds to each of a plurality of analytes and includes a plurality of pieces of first identification information, and extracting a related term includes extracting a related term commonly related to the plurality of pieces of first identification information (Page 12 col 1 paragraph 2 "Second, we introduce a method of deriving bulk chemical information from the spectra. This method uses the results of the peak identification and fitting methods. Simulations using synthetic data were conducted to validate this bulk method. While not all peaks from the simulation input are retrieved correctly by the speciated method, we show that bulk chemical information, such as oxidation state, carbon number and functions thereof, can be quantitatively determined using the results of the peak identification and fitting methods"). Additionally, as this is interpreted to mean running the association analysis on multiple terms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed analysis on multiple terms, as such a modification represents a predictable variation of known techniques. Regarding claims 3 and 10 , Stark in view of Krallinger teach the methods of Claims 1 and 8 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Stark also teaches receiving an input of second identification information from a user, wherein the extracting a related term includes extracting the related term on a basis of both the first identification information and the second identification information. Similar to claims 2 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed analysis on a second set of terms of the same kind, as such a modification represents a predictable variation of known techniques. Regarding claims 4 and 11 , Stark in view of Krallinger teach the methods of Claims 1 and 8 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Stark also teaches the analyzer is a mass spectrometer (Page 1 abstract "We illustrate the fitting method using a sample data set from a chemical ionization mass spectrometer with a resolution of approximately 4000 (M/dM),operated using acetate reagent ions"). Regarding claims 7 and 14 , Stark in view of Krallinger teach the methods of Claims 1 and 8 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Krallinger also teaches extracting the related term according to a rule that adopts at least one of a confidence level, a support level, and a lift value in the association analysis (Page 28 col 1 paragraph 5 "With respect to the ranking strategies of the indexed chemicals, the used criteria could be summarized as: using counts of the number of occurrences of each chemical mentions, applying some manual rules based on the class chemical detected, examining if the chemical name exists in a specific chemical database, scanning if the chemical name was found in the training/development collection, using confidence scores, and marginal probabilities returned by ML models"). Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103 Applicant’s arguments filed 4/13/2026 are fully considered. Applicant has amended claims in a manner that has significantly altered the scope of the invention, as such new art has been applied. Amended claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as detailed above . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent US-11880374 in view of Stark et al. (International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 389 (2015): 26-38) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both involve acquiring analytical data based on a measurement of an analyte and identifying the analyte, acquiring identification information associated with the identified analyte from an external literature database, extracting related terms using co-occurrence frequency between the query terms (of the analyte) and candidate terms (in the database), presenting these related terms to a user, using data from a mass spectrometer, receiving a second information input from a user, and assigning a confidence level to the association analysis. While US-11880374 does not explicitly teach receiving measurements from an external analytical device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify these methods, with those taught by Stark as described above for claims 1 and 8 of the instant application, in order to pull terms ("elemental parameters") while spectra are being acquired (Stark page 12 col 2 paragraph 3 "Finally, we make use of the relationship between mass defect and bulk chemical parameters to develop a second method in which bulk composition parameters are determined without any peak assignment or fitting. Again, comparison to simulated data allows validation of this method. It shows slightly higher uncertainty than the assignment and fitting method, but has the advantage that it can be used for rapid determination of elemental parameters, for example as an online method to get chemical information while the spectra are being acquired"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both methods are concerned with matching associated terms between a query and database. Response to Arguments under Double Patenting 07-37 Applicant’s arguments filed 4/13/2026 are fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claim "amendments have sufficiently distinguished the claimed invention from the claims subject to the double patenting rejection" (Remarks 4/13/2026 page 10). Examiner notes above that amended claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 are still rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent 11880374 in view of Stark et al. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US-20080319681, Foo-tim Chau, 2008, Identity of mixture components using MS data Swain et al., "ChemDataExtractor: a toolkit for automated extraction of chemical information from the scientific literature." Journal of chemical information and modeling 56.10 (2016): 1894-1904, Extracting chemical data from literature for building databases US-20170148084, Axelsson et al., 2017, MS data of chemical identities, does term correlation/clustering, but for wine EP-3165912, Kageyama et al., 2017, Comparing mass spec graphs to extract candidate compounds WO-2017173390, Blume et al., 2017, MS for diagnosis Conclusion No claims are allowed. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A. Player whose telephone number is 571-272-6350. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-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, Karlheinz R. Skowronek can be reached at 571-272-9047. 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. /R.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1686 /Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 2 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 3 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 4 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 5 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 6 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 7 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 8 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 9 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 10 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 11 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 12 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 13 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 14 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 15 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 16 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 17 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 18 Art Unit: 1686 Application/Control Number: 17/609,622 Page 19 Art Unit: 1686
Prosecution Insights