DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on July 21, 2026.
Claims 1-19 are rejected as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 12,578,317 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting.
Rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright.
Rejection of claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wright in view of Johnsen.
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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/24/23, 12/05/25, 12/11/25, 5/06/26, and 7/21/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,578,317 (“the ‘317 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1:
App. No. 18/113,689
‘317 Patent
1. A computer-implemented method for producing learning data to produce an estimation model that causes a computer to function to
output information about a peak in a target waveform based on a plurality of reference waveforms of a given type of device, the method comprising:
obtaining the plurality of reference waveforms;
specifying the information about the peak according to a criterion corresponding to the given type of device for each of the plurality of reference waveforms; and
assigning the specified information about the peak to each of the plurality of reference waveforms.
1. A method for producing learning data for producing an estimation model that causes a computer to function to
output information about a peak in a target waveform based on a plurality of reference waveforms, the method comprising:
acquiring the plurality of reference waveforms;
specifying information about a peak part according to a certain criterion for each of the plurality of reference waveforms; and
assigning information about the peak part specified to each of the plurality of reference waveforms,
wherein the certain criterion includes a peak criterion specifying the peak in each of the plurality of reference waveforms and a baseline criterion specifying a baseline in each of the plurality of reference waveforms and,
wherein the peak criterion defines at least one of an S/N ratio of a peak candidate, a separation degree of the peak candidate, a symmetry factor of the peak candidate, a ratio of the peak candidate existing in the reference waveforms to an entire peak assumed from the peak candidate, a height of a peak top in the peak candidate, and a width of the peak candidate in order to identify the peak candidate as the peak in each reference waveforms.
Regarding claims 2-6, claims 1-4 of the ‘317 patent disclose substantially the same limitations. Regarding claim 7:
App. No. 18/113,689
‘317 Patent
7. A waveform analysis device comprising:
an interface that obtains a target waveform of a given type of device; and
one or more processors that input the target waveform to a trained estimation model and acquire information about a peak in the target waveform,
wherein the estimation model is subjected to training processing using learning data produced by assigning the information about the peak specified according to a criterion corresponding to the given type of device to each of a plurality of reference waveforms of the given type of device so as to output the information about the peak in the target waveform when the target waveform is input.
4. A waveform analysis device comprising:
a waveform acquisition portion that acquires a target waveform that is unanalyzed; and
a peak information acquisition portion that inputs the target waveform to a first estimation model to acquire information about a first peak in the target waveform, the first estimation model being trained,
wherein the first estimation model is subjected to learning processing using learning data produced by assigning information about a peak part specified according to a first certain criterion to each of a plurality of reference waveforms so as to output information about a peak in the target waveform when the target waveform is input, and
wherein the peak criterion defines at least one of an S/N ratio of a peak candidate, a separation degree of the peak candidate, a symmetry factor of the peak candidate, a ratio of the peak candidate existing in the reference waveform to an entire peak assumed from the peak candidate, a height of a peak top in the peak candidate, and a width of the peak candidate in order to identify the peak candidate as the peak in each reference waveform.
Regarding claims 8-12, claims 5-12 of the ‘317 patent disclose substantially the same limitations. Regarding claims 13-19, claims 10-15 of the ‘317 patent disclose substantially the same limitations.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “a recording medium non-temporarily recording a computer program that is executed by at least one processor of a computer” does not definitively exclude signals per se. Examiner does not equate “non-temporarily” with “non-transitory” because “temporarily” implies a time period in which the computer program exists and what is considered “non-temporarily” is not defined such that a signal, which may only exist for an instant, may still be considered as existing for a ”non-temporary” amount of time. “Non-transitory,” on the other hand, indicates that the computer program has been physically affixed in a location; that is, precludes a signal. Accordingly, Applicant should amend claim 19 to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium includes instructions, that, when executed by at least one processor of a computer, cause the computer to perform…,” or some similar language. See 2106.03, Subsection I.
Claims 1-19are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that the steps of obtaining data is not significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A computer-implemented method for producing learning data to produce an estimation model that causes a computer to function to
output information about a peak in a target waveform based on a plurality of reference waveforms of a given type of device, the method comprising:
obtaining the plurality of reference waveforms;
specifying the information about the peak according to a criterion corresponding to the given type of device for each of the plurality of reference waveforms; and
assigning the specified information about the peak to each of the plurality of reference waveforms.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Specifying information about a peak in a graph is a mental process that can be done with pencil and paper and/or in the human mind. For example, referring to FIGS. 6 and 7 of the Specification, candidate peaks may be visually identified and information about the particular peaks can be specified according to the observations of a human. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Assigning information to particular locations on a graph (i.e., “peaks”) is a mental process that can be performed by a human. For example, a human can evaluate the peaks and record, using pencil and paper or a generic computer, information for each of the peaks, such as the information illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 7. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A computer-implemented method for producing learning data to produce an estimation model that causes a computer to function to
output information about a peak in a target waveform based on a plurality of reference waveforms of a given type of device, the method comprising:
obtaining the plurality of reference waveforms;
specifying the information about the peak according to a criterion corresponding to the given type of device for each of the plurality of reference waveforms; and
assigning the specified information about the peak to each of the plurality of reference waveforms.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Providing data (i.e., outputting information) is an extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation does not recite, with specificity, how the data is provided and therefore does not improve the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Transmitting data is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Courts have found that the extra-solution activity of data gathering is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, generic computer components are not additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites wherein the given type of device includes a gas chromatograph. The claim merely further describes the device of that is recited in the independent claim. The device is an additional element and not a type of device that constitutes a particular machine. Instead, the recitation is for a generic computer with generic hardware and merely specifies a field of use for application of the judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.05(b) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the criterion includes, in order to specify a peak candidate as a peak in each reference waveform, a first item that an S/N ratio of the peak candidate is greater than or equal to a first value and a second item that the peak candidate is adjacent to a peak specified according to the first item and the S/N ratio of the peak candidate is greater than or equal to a second value smaller than the first value. The recited criterion are able to be specified by a mental process. For example, a human can observe a graph of the waveforms and determine one or more characteristics of the peaks based on judgment of the human, and specify those claimed items. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the second item includes a separation degree from the peak specified according to the first item, the separation degree being less than or equal to a predetermined value. The claim further specifies the second item and does not include any additional items that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, improve the functioning of a computer, nor amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the second item includes detection intensity of the peak candidate that is greater than or equal to a given ratio with respect to detection intensity of the peak specified according to the first item in order to specify the peak candidate as the peak. The claim further specifies the second item and does not include any additional items that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, improve the functioning of a computer, nor amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein the criterion includes specifying a peak candidate as the peak in each reference waveform regardless of an S/N ratio of the peak candidate when duration of a signal in a given intensity range is less than a given time in each reference waveform. The recited criterion are able to be specified by a mental process. For example, a human can observe a graph of the waveforms and determine one or more characteristics of the peaks based on judgment of the human, and specify those claimed items. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Step 1: The claim is directed to an article of manufacture, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 7
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
a waveform analysis device comprising:
an interface that obtains a target waveform of a given type of device; and
one or more processors that
input the target waveform to a trained estimation model and
acquire information about a peak in the target waveform,
wherein the estimation model is subjected to training processing using learning data produced by
assigning the information about the peak specified according to a criterion corresponding to the given type of device to each of a plurality of reference waveforms of the given type of device so as to
output the information about the peak in the target waveform when the target waveform is input.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concepts
Training a model is a mathematical concept that includes providing training data to a model that performs one or more mathematical functions. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Assigning information to particular locations on a graph (i.e., “peaks”) is a mental process that can be performed by a human. For example, a human can evaluate the peaks and record, using pencil and paper or a generic computer, information for each of the peaks, such as the information illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 7. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 7
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
a waveform analysis device comprising:
an interface that obtains a target waveform of a given type of device; and
one or more processors that
input the target waveform to a trained estimation model and
acquire information about a peak in the target waveform,
wherein the estimation model is subjected to training processing using learning data produced by
assigning the information about the peak specified according to a criterion corresponding to the given type of device to each of a plurality of reference waveforms of the given type of device so as to
output the information about the peak in the target waveform when the target waveform is input.
The limitation is merely a field of use and does not specify a particular machine to perform the abstract idea in a manner that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the recited machine is no more than a device that includes generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(b) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Providing data (i.e., inputting data to a model) is an extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation does not recite, with specificity, how the data is provided and therefore does not improve the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Providing data (i.e., outputting information) is an extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation does not recite, with specificity, how the data is provided and therefore does not improve the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8-12
Claims 8-12 recite the device of claim 13 with limitations that are substantially the same as the limitations recited in claims 2-6. According, for at least the same reasons as asserted for claims 2-6 and 13, claims 8-12 are rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 13-18
Claims 13-18 recite a computer-implemented (generic computer component) method that includes the same limitations as those recited in claims 7-12. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as asserted for claims 7-12, claims 13-18 are directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites a recording medium (generic computer component) non-temporarily recording a computer program that is executed by at least one processor of a computer to cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 13. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 13, claim 19 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
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, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0089344).
Claim 1
Wright discloses:
A computer-implemented method for
Computer instructions according to any of the methods described above may be supplied as a computer program product or products tangibly embodied on any form of tangible computer readable medium, such computer program product or products or media on or in which they are embodied themselves being embodiments of the invention. Wright at [0110].
producing learning data to produce an estimation model that causes a computer to function to
To improve the previously described parameterless peak detection techniques, a “learning mode” is provided, wherein the user specifies a peak, or a portion of a peak, (possibly with the cursor of a graphical user interface) and selects from a context menu choices to improve the peak detection for that peak or peak area. Wright at [0011].
output information about a peak in a target waveform based on a plurality of reference waveforms of a given type of device, the method comprising:
In step 180, the parameters of the final model peaks are reported to a user. The reporting may be performed in numerous alternative ways—for instance via a visual display terminal, a paper printout, or, indirectly, by outputting the parameter information to a database on a storage medium for later retrieval by a user or by a combination of these reporting methods. Wright at [0056].
obtaining the plurality of reference waveforms;
The first step 110 in the method 100 is the reception of an input spectrum directly from an analytical chemical device or, alternatively, from a data file comprising data previously collected from an analytical chemical device. Wright at [0054].
specifying the information about the peak according to a criterion corresponding to the given type of device for each of the plurality of reference waveforms; and
The next step 150, which is described in greater detail in subsequent FIG. 5, is the generation of an initial estimate of the parameters of synthetic peaks, each of which models a positive spectral feature of the baseline corrected spectrum. Such parameters may relate, for instance, to peak center, width, skew and area of modeled peaks, either in preliminary or intermediate form. Wright at [0055].
assigning the specified information about the peak to each of the plurality of reference waveforms.
In step 180, the parameters of the final model peaks are reported to a user. The reporting may be performed in numerous alternative ways—for instance via a visual display terminal, a paper printout, or, indirectly, by outputting the parameter information to a database on a storage medium for later retrieval by a user or by a combination of these reporting methods. Wright at [0056].
Claim 2
Wright discloses:
wherein the given type of device includes a gas chromatograph.
The “spectrum” may, in fact, comprise a chromatogram, such as those produced by liquid or gas chromatography, in which the abscissa represents time (for instance, retention time) and the ordinate represents intensity of detection of analytes or other chemicals by a detector. Wright at [0054].
Claim 3
Wright discloses:
wherein the criterion includes, in order to specify a peak candidate as a peak in each reference waveform, a first item that an S/N ratio of the peak candidate is greater than or equal to a first value and
The methods described in FIG. 5 locate the most intense region of the data, fit it to one of several peak shapes, remove that theoretical peak shape from the experimental data, and then continue to repeat this process until there are no remaining data peaks with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) greater than some pre-determined value, s, greater than or equal to unity. Wright at [0070].
a second item that the peak candidate is adjacent to a peak specified according to the first item and the S/N ratio of the peak candidate is greater than or equal to a second value smaller than the first value.
In step 524, the root-of-the-mean squared values (root-mean-square or RMS) of the difference spectrum is calculated. The ratio of this RMS value to the intensity of the most recently synthesized peak may be taken as a measure of the signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio of any possibly remaining peaks. As peaks continue to be removed (that is, as synthetic fit peaks are subtracted in each iteration of the loop), the RMS value of the difference spectrum approaches the RMS value of the noise. Wright at [0079].
Claim 5
Wright discloses:
wherein the second item includes detection intensity of the peak candidate that is greater than or equal to a given ratio with respect to detection intensity of the peak specified according to the first item in order to specify the peak candidate as the peak.
The detection of peaks in spectra may be performed by a matched filter score that assesses the overlap between a canonical peak shape and a window of intensity samples in the chromatogram. The simplest instance of such a filter score is the value of a single sample intensity. A peak is judged to be present when the filter score exceeds a threshold, defined as a multiple of the estimated noise level. Within certain embodiments, the optional final stage of the algorithm refines the initial parameter estimates for multiple detected chromatographic peaks. Refinement consists of exploring the space of N parameters (the total number of parameters across all peaks, i.e. 4 for each Gamma/EMG and 3 for each Gaussian) to find the set of values that minimizes the sum of squared differences between the observed and model chromatogram. Wright at [0032].
Claim 7
Wright discloses:
A waveform analysis device comprising:
The “spectrum” may, in fact, comprise a chromatogram, such as those produced by liquid or gas chromatography, in which the abscissa represents time (for instance, retention time) and the ordinate represents intensity of detection of analytes or other chemicals by a detector. Wright at [0054].
an interface that obtains a target waveform of a given type of device; and
In learning mode, the user may interact with a computer running the methods of the present invention using any suitable user interface means. Often, such user interface means will comprise a graphical user interface (GUI). Using the interface means, a user may (a) select a region or detected peak of a spectrum for which peaks have already been automatically detected and, then, (b) indicate, from a menu of choices, a general modification to be applied during subsequent automatic peak detection in the vicinity of the selected spectral region or peak. Wright at [0104].
one or more processors that input the target waveform to a trained estimation model and acquire information about a peak in the target waveform, wherein the estimation model is subjected to training processing using learning data produced
According to another aspect of the invention, there is a provided a computer readable medium having thereon program instructions for automatically identifying and characterizing spectral peaks of a spectrum generated by an analytical apparatus, the program instructions operable to cause apparatus including a programmable processor to… Wright at [0023].
The claim further recites training data produced using a method that is substantially the same as the method recited in claim 1. The remaining limitations are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) for at least the same reasons as asserted for claim 1.
Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected as being anticipated by Wright.
Claims 8-9 and 11
Claims 8-9 and 11 disclose a device that performs steps that are substantially the same as the method disclosed in claims 2-3 and 5. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 2-3 and 5, claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright.
Claims 13-15 and 17
Claims 13-15 and 17 recite a method that is substantially the same as the method performed by the device recited in claims 7-9 and 11. Accordingly, claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 7-9 and 11.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites:
A recording medium non-temporarily recording a computer program that is executed by at least one processor of a computer to cause the computer to perform
According to another aspect of the invention, there is a provided a computer readable medium having thereon program instructions for automatically identifying and characterizing spectral peaks of a spectrum generated by an analytical apparatus, the program instructions operable to cause apparatus including a programmable processor to… Wright at [0023].
the method according to claim 13.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright.
Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 13, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright.
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.
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.
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 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wright in view of Johnsen, et al., (“Gas chromatography – mass spectrometry data processing made easy,” hereinafter Johnsen).
Claim 4
Wright does not appear to disclose:
wherein the second item includes a separation degree from the peak specified according to the first item, the separation degree being less than or equal to a predetermined value.
Johnsen discloses:
wherein the second item includes a separation degree from the peak specified according to the first item, the separation degree being less than or equal to a predetermined value.
The data must be split into retention time intervals with approximate baseline separation. The interval borders should be determined in a reasonable manner, meaning that the peaks of interest should be included in the interval without cutting off any tailing or fronting. Even tails from peaks adjacent to the intervals, as shown in Fig. S1, does not pose a problem. Further, as few compounds as possible should be included when selecting intervals. Selecting a simpler (fewer compounds) interval reduces computation time and prevents small errors accumulating in more complicated models with many compounds. Johnsen at ???.
Claim 6
Wright does not appear to disclose:
wherein the criterion includes specifying a peak candidate as the peak in each reference waveform regardless of an S/N ratio of the peak candidate when duration of a signal in a given intensity range is less than a given time in each reference waveform.
Johnsen discloses:
wherein the criterion includes specifying a peak candidate as the peak in each reference waveform regardless of an S/N ratio of the peak candidate when duration of a signal in a given intensity range is less than a given time in each reference waveform.
The second example (Fig. 5) shows how well the mass spectra from a low S/N ratio peak is modelled using PARADISe. Despite extreme low S/N ratio of this peak, its deconvoluted mass spectrum allowed identification using the NIST mass spectral library, found as dimethyl malonic acid. The identity of this compound was validated with an authentic standard, which was found to have the same retention time and mass spectrum. Johnsen at ???.
Claims 10, 12, 16, and 18
Claims 10, 12, 16, and 18 recite substantially the same limitations as the method disclosed in claims 4 and 6. Accordingly, claims 10, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 4 and 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reich, Gregor, (“Recognizing chromatographic peaks with pattern recognition methods : Part 1. Development of a k-nearest-neighbour technique”)
Noda, et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,198,630)
Izamailov, et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 7,720,612)
Guetter, et al., (WIPO Pub. No. 2021191421): additionally includes references to other pertinent prior art.
Du, et al., (“Improved peak detection in mass spectrum by incorporating continuous wavelet transform-based pattern matching”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights