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 .
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a method. The steps of “inputting data or variables” and “outputting a partial differential coefficient” are processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretation include their performance in the mind, which falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no action is taken after the calculation of the claimed partial differential coefficient, and therefor is not integrated into any particular practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) an apparatus. The steps of “inputting data or variables” and “outputting a partial differential coefficient” are processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretation include their performance in the mind, which falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no action is taken after the calculation of the claimed partial differential coefficient, and therefor is not integrated into any particular practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because performing abstract ideas on a computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see: MPEP 2016.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gritti et al. (Theoretical comparison of the performance of gradient elution chromatography at constant pressure and constant flow rate, referred to herein as “Gritti”); Gritti et al. (New Insights on Mass Transfer Kinetics in Chromatography, referred to herein as “Gritty2011”) is cited in the rejection as an evidentiary reference as the use of the experimental data is cited in “Gritti”.
Regarding claim 1, Gritti discloses a control method for a chromatographic data processor that analyzes and processes data of an analysis condition and a detection result of a chromatograph, comprising:
an input step including receiving, by the chromatographic data processor, input data or variables indicating a relationship between a number of theoretical plates and a flow rate (2. Theory, see: the differential equation that provides the variation of the flow rate with time in constant pressure gradient chromatography is derived; column height equivalent to a theoretical plate (HETP)), wherein the input data or variables is received from a detector of the chromatograph, the detector configured to detect separated analytes separated by a column of the chromatograph from an injected sample (3.1. Comparison between the peak capacities in constant flow-rate and constant pressure gradient chromatography, see: The value of the ratio Ω, of the sample diffusivity across the porous particle to the bulk molecular diffusion coefficient was adjusted semi-empirically to the data collected in [25], cited in PTO-892 and included copy of Gritti et al. (New Insights on Mass Transfer Kinetics in Chromatography)), and
an output step including generating and outputting, by the chromatographic data processor to a visual output device, a display of a partial differential coefficient in a function (zk) (2.1. General mass balance equation in gradient elution, see: plurality of partial differential equations) representing the number of theoretical plates as a function of two independent variables (xi, xj) selected from a variable (x1) indicating the flow rate (see: flow rate, Fv(t)), a variable (x2) indicating a length (see: column length, L), a variable (x3) indicating a pressure, and a variable (x4) indicating a time (see: time, t) and a display of a standardized efficiency metric based on the partial differential coefficient, wherein the standardized efficiency metric indicates how changes in the independent variables affect separation performance (2.1. General mass balance equation in gradient elution, see: first and second central special moments, µ1 and µ’2.2).
Regarding claim 2, Gritti further discloses the output step outputs a three-dimensional graph of the partial differential coefficient (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Gritti further discloses the standardized efficiency metric is dimensionless and standardized using the independent variable to be partially differentiated based on the partial differential coefficient (2.1. General mass balance equation in gradient elution, see: first and second central special moments, µ1 and µ’2.2).
Regarding claim 4, Gritti further discloses the standardized efficiency metric is dimensionless and is calculated based on a first dimensionless efficiency and a second dimensionless efficiency (2.2.3. Peak capacity for linear volume gradient and LSSM retention behavior, see: peak capacity, Pc,v based on volume variance µ’2.v(V)).
Regarding claim 5, Gritti further discloses the output step outputs the display of the standardized efficiency metric as a three-dimensional graph (Fig. 2) and/or separation condition analysis (2.2.3. Peak capacity for linear volume gradient and LSSM retention behavior, see: peak capacity, Pc,v based on volume variance µ’2.v(V)).
Regarding claim 6, Gritti discloses a chromatographic data processor that analyzes and processes data of an analysis condition and a detection result of a chromatograph (The disclosed calculations and figures inherently requires the entering (programming) of the equations and calculations into a computer in order to provide for the cited publication which is available online), wherein the chromatographic data processor is programmed to obtain input data or variables indicating a relationship between a number of theoretical plates and a flow rate (2. Theory, see: the differential equation that provides the variation of the flow rate with time in constant pressure gradient chromatography is derived; column height equivalent to a theoretical plate (HETP)) from a detector of the chromatograph, the detector configured to detect separated analytes separated by a column of the chromatograph from the injected sample (3.1. Comparison between the peak capacities in constant flow-rate and constant pressure gradient chromatography, see: The value of the ratio Ω, of the sample diffusivity across the porous particle to the bulk molecular diffusion coefficient was adjusted semi-empirically to the data collected in [25], cited in PTO-892 and included copy of Gritti et al. (New Insights on Mass Transfer Kinetics in Chromatography)), and
the chromatographic data processor is further programmed to output, to a visual output device, a display of a partial differential coefficient in a function (zk) (2.1. General mass balance equation in gradient elution, see: plurality of partial differential equations) representing the number of theoretical plates as a function of two independent variables (xi, xj) selected from a variable (x1) indicating the (see: flow rate, Fv(t)), a variable (x2) indicating a length (see: column length, L), a variable (x3) indicating a pressure, and a variable (x4) indicating a time (see: time, t), and a display of a standardized efficiency metric based on the partial differential coefficient, wherein the standardized efficiency metric indicates how changes in the independent variable affect separation performance (2.1. General mass balance equation in gradient elution, see: first and second central special moments, µ1 and µ’2.2).
Regarding claim 7, Gritti further discloses the chromatographic data processor is further programmed to output a three- dimensional graph of the partial differential coefficient (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Gritti further discloses the standardized efficiency metric is dimensionless and standardized using the independent variable to be partially differentiated based on the partial differential coefficient (2.1. General mass balance equation in gradient elution, see: first and second central special moments, µ1 and µ’2.2).
Regarding claim 9, Gritti further discloses the standardized efficiency metric is calculated based on a first dimensionless efficiency and a second dimensionless efficiency (2.2.3. Peak capacity for linear volume gradient and LSSM retention behavior, see: peak capacity, Pc,v based on volume variance µ’2.v(V)).
Regarding claim 10, Gritti further discloses the output of the standardized efficiency metric includes a three-dimensional graph (Fig. 2) and/or separation condition analysis (2.2.3. Peak capacity for linear volume gradient and LSSM retention behavior, see: peak capacity, Pc,v based on volume variance µ’2.v(V)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks directed towards the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that the amended claims are integrated into a practical application. The recitation of a computer to perform the limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks directed towards the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Gritti fails to teach or suggest a step of receiving input data or variable from a chromatograph detector. Gritti explicitly teaches “The value of the ratio Ω, of the sample diffusivity across the porous particle to the bulk molecular diffusion coefficient was adjusted semi-empirically to the data collected in [25]”, the cited reference, Gritti et al. (New Insights on Mass Transfer Kinetics in Chromatography), teaches the collected data is experimentally collected.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Gritti fails to teach or suggest an output step. The disclosed calculations and figures inherently requires the entering (programming) of the equations and calculations into a computer and outputting (displaying) the equations, calculations, data, and graphs, in order to provide for the cited publication which is available online.
For the above reasons, the previously presented grounds of rejection have been updated to address the claim amendments filed 12/01/2025 and maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ROBERT J EOM whose telephone number is (571)270-7075. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM).
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 5712721254. 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.
/ROBERT J EOM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797