DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are pending in the present application. Claims 1-4, and 9-11 were amended in the response filed 30 July 2026.
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 § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kanazawa et al. 12,571,779 B2 in view of Osoekawa et al. US Patent 11,486,866 B2.
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Kanazawa et al. teaches the following:
A training support method for causing a computer to execute processing for
assisting a training operation of an estimation model used to detect a peak of a signal waveform acquired by an analysis device, the training support method comprising:
[note: Abstract, “the generated waveform data D12 of the unseparated peaks is input as learning data, and the waveform data D1 and D2 corresponding to the waveform data D12 are input as training data in Step S40. Next, machine learning is performed using the waveform data D12, D1, and D2, and a learned model for estimating an accurate separation method of unseparated peaks is constructed based on the trained result (S50).” ];
acquiring a first signal waveform output by the analysis device [note: figure 4, S10, acquire waveform data D1 including the peak P1 of the composition A ];
displaying the first signal waveform on a display device [note: column 4 lines 26 through 30, display unit 50 ];
acquiring a second signal waveform having a high similarity degree to the first signal waveform and second peak information specifying one or more peaks of the second signal waveform from a storage device that stores a plurality of annotated signals [note: figure 4, step S20, acquire waveform data D2 including the peak P2 of the composition B; ; also see column 3 line 58 through column 4 line 11; column 4 lines 61- column 5 line 42 ];
displaying, on the display device, the second signal waveform and a second peak information image indicating the second peak information [note: column 3 line 47 through column 4 line 30, data processing unit includes a peak detection processing unit 320 and analysis unit. Data collection 310 collects waveform data of a chromatogram based on various composition of the sample measurement device, the analysis unit identifies each peak and calculates the peak height. The computer is configured to perform various operations including waveform data analysis. The display unit 50 is for example used to display the waveform data, and various compositions detected by the detector 140 and displays the quantitive results (i.e. waveform and peaks) column 4 lines 42 through 47, display unit 94; figure 5C ];
receiving input, by a user, of first peak information specifying one or more peaks of the first signal waveform [note: column 6 lines 7-17, the sample including compositions A and B is separated and detected by the data analysis device; also column 5 lines 9-42 ]; and
training the estimation model based on the first signal waveform and the first peak information [note: column 5 lines 26-42, note the machine learning model of the discriminator 820 may use a neural network (i.e. estimation model); column 6 line 57 through column 7 line 11; also column 7 lines 55-65; figure 1 ].
Although Kanazawa et al. teach the invention as cited above, they do not explicitly teach displaying, on the display device, the second signal waveform and a second peak information image indicating the second peak information. They do allow for display of analyzed information [see column 3 line 47 through column 4 line 47]. However, Osoekawa et al. further teach the limitation as follows [see column 15 lines 62-69, a display processor configured to display, on a screen of a display acquired for one peak by the peak detector, along with the signal waveform concerning the target sample, with each piece of peak information]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references since they are both directed toward analyzing signal waveforms and a display would provide means for analysis of the results output.
Claim 8: The training support method according to claim 1, further comprising displaying a first peak information image indicating the first peak information on the display device [note: Kanazawa et al. figure 1 (50), display unit and figure 5C; also see Osoekawa et al. figure 1 display (13) and claim 1 ].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot in view of the current rejection.
ARGUMENT: The prior art does not teach the limitation “displaying, on the display device, the second signal waveform and a second peak information image indicating the second peak information”.
RESPONSE: Kanazawa et al. has been combined with Osoekawa et al. Osoekawa et al. further details a display processor configured to display on a screen one or more pieces of peak information acquired by a peak detector along with a signal waveform concerning the target sample with each piece of peak information, see column 5 lines 62-67. Kanazawa et al. does allow on a broader scope for this feature, see column 3 line 47 through column 4 line 30, data processing unit includes a peak detection processing unit 320 and analysis unit. Data collection 310 collects waveform data of a chromatogram based on various composition of the sample measurement device, the analysis unit identifies each peak and calculates the peak height. The computer is configured to perform various operations including waveform data analysis. The display unit 50 is for example used to display the waveform data, and various compositions detected by the detector 140 and displays the quantitive results (i.e. waveform and peaks) column 4 lines 42 through 47, display unit 94; figure 5C ; however, Osoekawa et al. specifies the specific limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights