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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 09/11/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-11 are currently pending. Claim 11 is newly added. Claim 10 was previously withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A review of the specification has shown a lack of written description regarding the analysis data creator and this feature does not seem to be a component reasonably conveyed by the Applicant as to what constitutes this component. Therefore, claim 11 is rejection under 112(a) for containing new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 appears to be written as a dependent claim however the preamble does not tie claim 11 back to any prior claim. Therefore, claim 11 features numerous antecedent basis issues that leads to the Examiner being unclear to the structure of the claim 11. For at least this reason, claim 11 is rejected under 112(b) for being unclear and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0054055 (Sone hereinafter) in view of US 2021/0116468 (Sugimoto hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Sone teaches an analyzing device that discloses a storage section which holds information concerning measurement conditions and information concerning data-analysis methods for each of a plurality of known compounds as well as information (Figure 1 reference number 3 details the analyzer information storage for the analyzer information 2); a display section (Display 1 per ¶ 30); a measurement controller configured to obtain measurement data of a sample containing one or a plurality of the plurality of known compounds by performing a measurement based on information concerning one or a plurality of the measurement conditions held in the storage section (Measurement control routine 9 per 32); and a display controller configured to display, on the display section, a first data-analysis screen for displaying measurement data of the data-analysis target compounds extracted from the measurement data of the sample and a second data-analysis screen for displaying all measurement data (Figure 2 of Sone shows the measurement routine 9 obtaining data at 11 then analyzing the data at 12 and producing the final analysis at 13 per ¶ 32-33 where this data is able to be shown on the display unit of Sone).
Sone is silent with respect to the storage section having information concerning a plurality of data filters each of which extracts a subset of the plurality of known compounds; a filter selection receiver configured to receive an input for selecting one of the plurality of data filters as a data-analysis filter to be applied to an analysis of the measurement data of the sample; an analysis-target-compound extractor configured to extract, as data-analysis target compounds, a subset of the plurality of known compounds by the data-analysis filter.
However, Sugimoto teaches analysis system that discloses a storage section having information concerning a plurality of data filters each of which extracts a subset of the plurality of known compounds (¶ 79 detailing filtering for a specific compound/group that is stored int the analyzer); a filter selection receiver configured to receive an input for selecting one of the plurality of data filters as a data-analysis filter to be applied to an analysis of the measurement data of the sample (¶ 79); an analysis-target-compound extractor configured to extract, as data-analysis target compounds, a subset of the plurality of known compounds by the data-analysis filter (Resultant combination of ¶ 79 of Sugimoto as applied to the analyzing device of Sone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the filters of Sugimoto into the analyzer of Sone to allow for the user to specifically target specific compounds or groups.
Regarding claim 3, Sone’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Sone and Sugimoto would further disclose that the filter selection receiver is further configured to receive an input for selecting one of the plurality of data filters as a measurement filter to be applied to the measurement of the sample (¶ 79 of Sugimoto where the filters selected would be compared to the stored values and the analyzed sample provided); the sample analyzing device further includes a measurement-target-compound extractor configured to extract a subset of the plurality of known compounds as measurement target compounds by using the measurement filter (Resultant combination where the filtered data of Sugimoto as applied to Sone would then be extracted per Sone ¶ 32-33); and the measurement controller obtains the measurement data of the sample by performing a measurement using the information concerning measurement conditions of the measurement target compounds held in the storage section (¶ 32-33 of Sone).
Regarding claim 6, Sone’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Sone and Sugimoto would further disclose an analysis-target-compound changer configured to receive an addition and removal of the data-analysis target compounds (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the changing of filters by Sugimoto as applied to Sone would constitute “an addition and removal of the data-analysis target compounds”), wherein: the display controller may display, on the first data-analysis screen, the measurement data of the data-analysis target compounds after a change received by the analysis-target-compound changer is applied (Sone ¶ 32-33 allows for the obtained data to be displayed which would include the various filters and obtained data by Sugimoto as applied to Sone).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0054055 (Sone) in view of US 2021/0116468 (Sugimoto) and further in view of US 2020/0086312 (Hiddessen hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Sone’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the plurality of known compounds are partially or entirely metabolites, and the plurality of data filters are prepared according to an attribute of samples.
However, Hiddessen teaches a detection device and method of operation that discloses plurality of known compounds are partially or entirely metabolites, and the plurality of data filters are prepared according to an attribute of samples (¶ 183).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stored filterable compounds of Sone/Sugimoto to include metabolites as taught by Hiddessen to increase the usable ranges of Sone and increase the applicability of the device of Sone.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0054055 (Sone) in view of US 2021/0116468 (Sugimoto) and further in view of US 2018/0032666 (Sun hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Sone’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the plurality of data filters includes a first filter for extracting a subset of the plurality of known compounds held in the storage section and a second filter for extracting a subset of the known compounds extracted by the first filter.
However, Sun teaches an analyzing device for filtering a plurality of sets and subsets of data that discloses a plurality of data filters that include a first filter for extracting a subset of the plurality of known compounds held in the storage section and a second filter for extracting a subset of the known compounds extracted by the first filter (¶ 101-102 details the ability to filter an already filtered set of data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtering commands and results of Sone/Sugimoto with the additional filtering of Sun to allow for a user to obtain a more specific set of data from an initial set of data.
Regarding claim 5, Sone’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 but are silent with respect that the plurality of data filters include a first filter for extracting a subset of the plurality of known compounds held in the storage section and a second filter for extracting a subset of the known compounds extracted by the first filter; and the filter selection receiver receives a selection of the first filter or the second filter as the data-analysis filter when the first filter is selected as the measurement filter, as well as receives a selection of the second filter as the data-analysis filter when the second filter is selected as the measurement filter.
However, Sun teaches an analyzing device for filtering a plurality of sets and subsets of data that discloses a plurality of data filters that include a first filter for extracting a subset of the plurality of known compounds held in the storage section and a second filter for extracting a subset of the known compounds extracted by the first filter (¶ 101-102 details the ability to filter an already filtered set of data); and the filter selection receiver receives a selection of the first filter or the second filter as the data-analysis filter when the first filter is selected as the measurement filter, as well as receives a selection of the second filter as the data-analysis filter when the second filter is selected as the measurement filter (Resultant combination when adding the teachings of Sun into the combination of Sone/Sugimoto for the 2 level filtering of Sun to be present in the filter selection of Sugimoto within Sone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtering commands and results of Sone/Sugimoto with the additional filtering of Sun to allow for a user to obtain a more specific set of data from an initial set of data.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0054055 (Sone) in view of US 2021/0116468 (Sugimoto) and further in view of US 2016/0004820 (Moore hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Sone’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a filter creator configured to create a new filter according to an input of information identifying the filter as well as a selection of a subset of the plurality of known compounds held in the storage section, and to save the new filter in the storage section.
However, Moore teaches a data pool management and analysis system that discloses a filter creator configured to create a new filter according to an input of information identifying the filter as well as a selection of a subset of the plurality of known compounds held in the storage section, and to save the new filter in the storage section (¶ 382 discloses a filter creation tool which when applied to Sone/Sugimoto would allow for the creation of custom filters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the analyzer of Sone/Sugimoto with the custom filters of Moore to allow for the user to create specific filters as new data needs develop.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0054055 (Sone) in view of US 2021/0116468 (Sugimoto) in view of US 2016/0004820 (Moore) and further in view of US 2018/0032666 (Sun).
Regarding claim 8, Sone’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 but are silent with respect that the filter creator selects a subset of the plurality of known compounds held in the storage section, based on a result of an analysis performed for identifying compounds in a sample by analyzing, by the data-analysis methods, the measurement data of the sample obtained by the measurement controller.
However, Sun teaches an analyzing device for filtering a plurality of sets and subsets of data that discloses creating a secondary filter to already filtered data sets (¶ 101-102 details the ability to filter an already filtered set of data). The resultant combination would be such that the filter creator selects a subset of the plurality of known compounds held in the storage section, based on a result of an analysis performed for identifying compounds in a sample by analyzing, by the data-analysis methods, the measurement data of the sample obtained by the measurement controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtering commands and results of Sone/Sugimoto/Moore with the additional filtering of Sun to allow for a user to obtain a more specific set of data from an initial set of data.
Regarding claim 9, Sone’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Sone, Sugimoto, Moore, and Sun would further disclose that the filter creator selects a subset of the plurality of known compounds held in the storage section, by receiving an input which specifies a subset of the identified compounds, and excluding the specified compounds from the identified compounds (The newly created filter would utilize the teachings of Sun to create a filter subset from an already filtered subset of data per Sun ¶ 101-102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the combination of Sone (US 2002/0054055) and Sugimoto (US 2021/0116468) fails to disclose “ a storage section which holds information concerning measurement conditions and information concerning data-analysis methods for each of a plurality of known compounds” has been reviewed but is not found to be persuasive. “Applicant further narrows their argument by stating that Sone does not teach analyzer information for each of a plurality of known compounds. Applicant then states that “Sone's thermal analyzer measures variations for a whole material of the sample, not for a compound included in the sample.” The ability to detect variants of the a whole material which is made up of a plurality of compounds would be and is read as containing information concerning the measurement/detecting of a plurality of known compounds and conditions regarding those compounds. Applicant appears to be reading in a narrow interpretation when the Examiner is utilizing what is written in the claims. Sone further teaches the required measurement performance in ¶ 32 as well as the preloaded corrective functions which would be related to the compound data within the storage. The measurement would then output the sensed data related to the known/stored data. Applicant further argues the Sone reference and the display section taught by Sone in ¶ 30. Sone is clear in ¶ 32-35 and 41 that the sensed data is displayed for the user to observe as is when known by one in the art when using a display device. Furthermore, the interpretation of the multiple displays can and is treated as being discrete windows on a singular monitor where a user can flip between them. Applicant is welcomed to amend the claims in such a manner that this interpretation would not be applicable or further amend their claims in any other way to overcome the Sone reference.
Applicant further argues the Sugimoto reference and the applied teachings for adding a plurality of selectable filters to Sone. The combination as set forth would utilize the customizable filtering of Sugimoto with the preloaded corrections of Sone to teach the limitation of “a filter selection receiver configured to receive an input for selecting one of the plurality of data filters as a data-analysis filter to be applied to an analysis of the measurement data of the sample”. Sugimoto in ¶ 79 does teach the ability to narrow a set of data which would be the known compounds of Sone as already known/loaded into the storage. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not found to be persuasive t this time however Applicant is welcome to amend their claims to further clarify the respective filtering to overcome the rejection of claim 1.
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights