DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A data processing method for quantifying concentrations of a plurality of components of which peaks are overlapping on a chromatogram with each other by estimating each peak of the plurality components using actual data of a three-dimensional chromatogram including the chromatogram and a spectrum acquired by chromatographic analysis on a sample, the data processing method comprising:
an initial values obtaining step of obtaining initial values of parameters related to shapes and sizes of estimated peaks of the plurality of components form the chromatogram;
an adjusted estimated peaks obtaining step of obtaining adjusted estimated peaks fo the plurality of components by adjusting values of the parameters of each of the estimated peaks starting from the initial values using a matrix decomposition so that a similarity of a pseudo chromatogram, generated by combining the estimated peaks after adjusting the values of the parameters to the chromatogram satisfies a preset criterion or converges to a certain value;
a concentrations quantifying step of quantifying concentrations of the plurality of components by calculation areas of each of the adjusted estimated peaks; and
a concentrations displaying step of displaying the quantified concentrations of the plurality of components on a display,
wherein the initial values obtaining step comprises:
a peak model function obtaining step of obtaining peak model functions corresponding to each of the estimated peaks, each of the peak model functions having the parameters; and
a peak model functions fitting step of fitting each of the peak model functions to the chromatogram while changing the parameters, values of parameters of each of the peak model functions after fitting to the chromatogram being the initial values of the parameters of the estimated peaks.
Claim 6 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A data processing system comprising:
a storage part that stores actual data of a three-dimensional chromatogram including a chromatogram and a spectrum acquired by chromatographic analysis on a sample, and a peak model function prepared in advance; and
a data processor configured to perform processing of actual data of the three- dimensional chromatogram using the peak model function and processing of quantifying concentrations of a plurality of components of which peaks are overlapping on the chromatogram with each other,
wherein the data processor is configured to execute:
an initial values obtaining step of obtaining initial values of parameters related to shapes and sizes of estimated peaks of the plurality of components form the chromatogram;
an adjusted estimated peaks obtaining step of obtaining adjusted estimated peaks fo the plurality of components by adjusting values of the parameters of each of the estimated peaks starting from the initial values using a matrix decomposition so that a similarity of a pseudo chromatogram, generated by combining the estimated peaks after adjusting the values of the parameters to the chromatogram satisfies a preset criterion or converges to a certain value;
a concentrations quantifying step of quantifying concentrations of the plurality of components by calculation areas of each of the adjusted estimated peaks; and
a concentrations displaying step of displaying the quantified concentrations of the plurality of components on a display,
wherein the initial values obtaining step comprises:
a peak model function obtaining step of obtaining peak model functions corresponding to each of the estimated peaks, each of the peak model functions having the parameters; and
a peak model functions fitting step of fitting each of the peak model functions to the chromatogram while changing the parameters, values of parameters of each of the peak model functions after fitting to the chromatogram being the initial values of the parameters of the estimated peaks.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the system, i.e. the storage part storing data and the data processor, configured to perform the processing does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The additional limitation of the displaying step of displaying the quantified concentrations equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data reporting (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 7, and 9 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is patent eligible under 101. Applicant argues that claim 1 is integrated into a practical application. Applicant argues that the quantification of chemical concentration of a physical sample is practical. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require any physical instruments performing measurements on a physical sample. The claimed quantification is part of the recited data processing algorithm, i.e. part of the recited abstract idea. Displaying the concentration equates to extrasolution data activity.
Applicant argues that the claims improve the functioning of a specific technology. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Synopsys v Mentor Graphics held that a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea and that the search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty (SYNOPSYS, INC. v. 2 MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION (CAFC Decided October 17, 2016). Thus, argued improved algorithm does not make the claim patent eligible since the argued improvement is part of the abstract idea itself. The claim do not contain additional limitations that tie the claims to a practical application or equate to something significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rubinstein (US 20160252484) discloses a data processing method for separating peaks of a plurality of components overlapping on a chromatogram from each other using actual data of a three-dimensional chromatogram including a chromatogram and a spectrum acquired by chromatographic analysis on a sample (see Abstract, Figs 3A and 3B, and paragraphs 0026 and 0084), the data processing method comprising:
an adjustment target peak acquisition step of obtaining a plurality of adjustment target peaks by applying, to the chromatogram, a peak model function prepared in advance to approximate a waveform of the chromatogram (see Fig. 3A and paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0055); and
an adjustment target peak adjustment step of setting the plurality of adjustment target peaks obtained in the adjustment target peak acquisition step as initial values before adjustment, and repeating adjustment of the adjustment target peaks until pseudo data of a three-dimensional chromatogram on the sample obtained by combining the adjustment target peaks after adjustment is similar to the actual data (see Figs 3A and 3B and paragraphs 0046-0047, 0057, and 0061).
Ivosev (US 20170038351) discloses separating overlapping peaks in chromatogram data using non-negative matrix factorization.
Makarov (US 20170243728) discloses that decomposition can be done using a plurality of methods including non-negative matrix factorization.
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 MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights