DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), therefore the rejection of claim 1 and claims depending therefrom has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 5 overcomes the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), therefore the rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 9 overcomes the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), therefore the rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Since claim 13 has been cancelled, the rejections of claim 13 are no longer are applicable.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Gonin teaches matching the at least one selected part with other parts of the plurality of time-resolved spectra to find similar parts corresponding to other events int eh plurality of events.” See [088] and [0098], for example, which teaches that the filter definition comprises at least one region of interest (ROI). And an ROI is a set of data points within the continuous data array corresponding to a TOF segment (mass spectrum, [0099]).
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonin, et. al. (US 20170110305 A1, see IDS filed 05/01/2024), hereinafter Gonin.
Regarding claim 1, a computer-implemented method for generating event-averaged and time-resolved spectra (Abstract, [0001] electronic data acquisition system for processing signals), from a plurality of time-resolved spectra of charged particles emitted from a surface of a sample (Abstract, [0001]), at which surface an event is repeated cyclically ([0040]-[0044], [0013], [0035], [0046], [0080]), wherein the plurality of time-resolved spectra are obtained with a charged particle analyser (mass analyzer/mass spectrometer, [0001]), the method comprising the steps of
receiving, from the charged particle analyser, the plurality of time-resolved spectra covering a plurality of events, wherein a time between events adjacent in time defines a time period, and wherein each of the plurality of time-resolved spectra comprises information on a distribution of charged particles as a function of a physical property for an interval of magnitudes for the physical property ([0064]-[0070], [0078-[0080] teaches mass spectra (mass-to-charge ratio) obtained from the mass analyzer, with events occurring in the spectra. The samples are measured through time such that the events inherently occur at certain times and have a time period between them.),
obtaining at least one selected part of the series of the plurality of time-resolved spectra, wherein the at least one selected part comprises spectra from at least a part of the interval of magnitudes for the physical property and a part of a time period when the event takes place ([0088]-[0099]),
matching the at least one selected part with other parts of the plurality of time-resolved spectra to find similar parts corresponding to other events in the plurality of events, and thereby determining points in time for the other events in the plurality of events ([0069], [0100]-[0103]), and
generating the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra of the event based on the plurality of time-resolved spectra and the determined points in time ([0083], [0091], [0106]), and
determining, based on the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra, a response at the surface of the sample to the event ([0113] classifier module).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the at least one selected part is obtained based on data input by a user ([0048], [0084], [0103], [0119]).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the at least one selected part is obtained during reception of the plurality of time-resolved spectra, wherein the matching is started during reception of the plurality of time- resolved spectra and wherein the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra is generated during reception of the plurality of time-resolved spectra (continuous, real-time processing, and real-time analysis that is simultaneous to the continuous acquisition of TOF extractions [0069], [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, also comprising the step of sending out control signals for controlling a cycling of the events ([0040], [0046], [0123]).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the control signals control at least one of: a gas mixture at the surface, a gas pressure at the surface, a temperature at the surface, an electromagnetic field at the surface, an optical field incident on the surface and a gas temperature at the surface ([0123], [0040], [0046] ionization laser changes electromagnetic field at surface of sample).
Regarding claim 14, a non-transitory computer program for generating the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra, comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one processor in a computer cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1 (electronic data acquisition system for processing signals and hardware/external computing unit, [0001], [0064]-[0067], [0071], [0118]-[0121]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonin (US 20170110305 A1) in view of Angelosante, et. al. (US 20170212042 A1, see IDS 05/01/2024), hereinafter Angelosante.
Regarding claim 4, Gonin does not explicitly teach wherein the generation of the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra is ended when an end condition is fulfilled, wherein the end condition is one of: reception of an end input signal, and a signal quality measure of the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra being better than a predetermined value.
Angelosante teaches wherein the generation of the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra is ended when an end condition is fulfilled, wherein the end condition is one of: reception of an end input signal, and a signal quality measure of the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra being better than a predetermined value ([0023] teaches the raw data is averaged data by weights such that the averaged data has a maximal signal-to-noise ratio and contain no artifacts. Then the pre-processing step finishes).
Angelosante modifies Gonin by suggesting averaging to achieve a maximal signal-to-noise ratio and no artifacts as a condition to finish pre-processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Angelosante because doing so allows for an improved quality of the signal-to-noise ratio (Angelosante, [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Gonin does not teach wherein the generation of the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra is ended when an end condition is fulfilled, wherein the end condition is that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a predetermined threshold.
Angelosante teaches wherein the generation of the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra is ended when an end condition is fulfilled, wherein the end condition is that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a predetermined threshold ([0023] teaches the raw data is averaged data by weights such that the averaged data has a maximal signal-to-noise ratio and contain no artifacts. Then the pre-processing step finishes).
Angelosante modifies Gonin by suggesting averaging to achieve a maximal signal-to-noise ratio and no artifacts as a condition to finish pre-processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Angelosante because doing so allows for an improved quality of the signal-to-noise ratio (Angelosante, [0023]).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonin (US 20170110305 A1) in view of Manjunatha, et. al. (Power Efficient Sum of Absolute Difference Algorithms for video Compression. IOSR Journal of VLSI and Signal Processing. Volume 1, Issue 6 (Mar. – Apr. 2013), PP 10-18).
Regarding claim 8, Gonin teaches wherein the plurality of time-resolved spectra comprises a plurality of data points ([0098]), and wherein the matching is performed by utilizing logical criterion ([0093]-[0103]).
Gonin does not explicitly teach wherein the matching is performed by subtracting the data in each data point in the at least one selected part from the data in corresponding data points in other parts of the plurality of time-resolved spectra and adding the differences, to obtain a result as a function of point in time for the other part of the plurality of time-resolved spectra, and determining the points in time for the other events by finding minima in the obtained result, however, Manjunatha teaches that this is a common signal processing operation.
Manjunatha teaches subtracting the data in each data point in the at least one selected part from the data in corresponding data points in other parts and adding the differences, to obtain a result, and finding minima in the obtained result (SAD Algorithm, see V on pgs. 14-15).
Manjunatha modifies Gonin by suggesting using the well-known SAD algorithm to perform matching on the time-resolved spectra and datapoints of Gonin to achieve determining the points in time for the other events.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Manjunatha because the SAD algorithm is a well-known algorithm that allows for measuring similarity of data (Manjunatha, pgs. 14-15).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonin (US 20170110305 A1) in view of Manjunatha, et. al. (Power Efficient Sum of Absolute Difference Algorithms for video Compression. IOSR Journal of VLSI and Signal Processing. Volume 1, Issue 6 (Mar. – Apr. 2013), PP 10-18), further in view of Celin, et. al. ("A Novel Method for ECG Classification Using Polynomial Based Curve Fitting," 2019 IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT), Coimbatore, India, 2019, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/ICECCT.2019.8869195.)
Regarding claim 9, Gonin teaches wherein the matching is performed by utilizing logical criterion ([0093]-[0103]).
Gonin does not explicitly teach wherein the matching comprises fitting a polynomial to the sum of the differences between the other parts of the plurality of time-resolved spectra and the at least one selected part to obtain the points in time for the other events.
Manjunatha teaches taking a sum of the difference between one part and other parts.
Celin teaches fitting a polynomial (Abstract).
Manjunatha and Celin modify the combination by suggesting taking a sum of the difference between one part and other parts of the time-resolved spectra of Gonin and fitting a polynomial to this data in order to determine points in time for the other events.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Celin because polynomial fitting allows for obtaining features for classification (Celin, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Gonin teaches wherein events are used in the generation of the event-averaged and time-resolved spectra only if the minima for the events are below a predetermined threshold ([0089]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonin (US 20170110305 A1) in view of Turin ("An introduction to matched filters," in IRE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 311-329, June 1960, doi: 10.1109/TIT.1960.1057571.)
Regarding claim 11, Gonin teaches wherein the matching is performed by utilizing logical criterion ([0093]-[0103]).
Gonin does not explicitly teach wherein the matching is performed by convolution of the at least one selected part with other parts of the plurality of time-resolved spectra, to obtain a result as a function of point in time for the other part of the plurality of time-resolved spectra, and determining the points in time for the other events by finding maxima in the obtained result.
Turin teaches wherein the matching is performed by convolution of the at least one selected part with other parts of the plurality of time-resolved spectra, to obtain a result ().
Turin modifies Gonin by suggesting the matching occurs by performing convolution on theat least one selected part with the other parts of the plurality of time-resolved spectra of Gonin and findng the maxima in order to find the matching event and corresponding time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Turin because taking the convolution and finding the maxima is a well-known method (matched filter) of correlating a known template signal with an unknown signal to detect the presence of the template int he unknown signal.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonin (US 20170110305 A1) in view of Turin ("An introduction to matched filters," in IRE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 311-329, June 1960, doi: 10.1109/TIT.1960.1057571.), further in view of Celin, et. al. ("A Novel Method for ECG Classification Using Polynomial Based Curve Fitting," 2019 IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT), Coimbatore, India, 2019, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/ICECCT.2019.8869195.).
Regarding claim 12, Gonin teaches wherein the matching is performed by utilizing logical criterion ([0093]-[0103]).
Gonin does not explicitly teach fitting a polynomial to a convolution of the at least one selected part with other parts of the plurality of time-resolved spectra to obtain the result.
Turin and Celin modify the combination by suggesting taking a convolution between one part and other parts of the time-resolved spectra of Gonin and fitting a polynomial to this data in order to determine points in time for the other events.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Celin because polynomial fitting allows for obtaining features for classification (Celin, Abstract).
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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881