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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to claims 6 and 10 obviate the rejections under 35 USC Section 112, and the rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the mental process of matching measured spectral data to reference spectral data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 only recites the steps of performing the matching. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the step, added in claim 2, which further comprises constructing a database, represents insignificant pre- or post- solution activity.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the mental process of matching measured spectral data to reference spectral data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 3 only recites the steps of performing the matching. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the step, added in claim 4, which further comprises constructing a database, represents insignificant pre- or post- solution activity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the mental process of deducing a mass and/or elemental composition of an analyte compound, searching a chemical structure database for a candidate structure or generating a theoretical composition based on the elemental composition, using a fragmentation prediction model to acquire structures of fragment ions, searching databases for information on fragment ions, and matching measured data to the estimated data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no other steps or elements are recited to apply the mental process. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no additional elements are recited. The acquisition of measured ion mobility and mass-to-charge ratio data is implied but not recited; however, even including this step would not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it would amount to only insignificant pre-solution activity of input data collection.
Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, though it is also indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 6 recites the mental process of generating a theoretical structure using an algorithm and the estimated elemental composition of the analyte compound. No other elements or steps are recited to apply the judicial exception in a practical application.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the mental process of matching m/z and ion mobility information of fragment ions of an analyte to a reference database, acquiring a potential substructure of the analyte, searching a database for a candidate structure of the analyte, using a model to estimate structures of fragment ions, searching a reference spectral database, and matching the measured m/z and ion mobility information to the estimated fragment ions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no steps other than these mental processes are claimed. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no additional elements are recited.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the mental process of deducing a mass and/or elemental composition of an analyte, acquiring information from databases and prediction models, and matching the information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing is recited aside from these mental process steps. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no other elements are recited.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the mental process of deducing a mass and/or elemental composition of an analyte, acquiring information from databases and prediction models, and matching the information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing is recited aside from these mental process steps. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no other elements are recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The present amendment overcomes the rejections under 35 USC 102 by incorporating previously indicated allowable limitations into the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 9, 16 and 17 under 35 USC 101 are withdrawn, as the limitation that the spectral data generation means and the output means are connected to the database and the matching means via a communication network outside the system is found to add to “significantly more” to the claim than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
However, the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-15 and 18-19 are maintained, because the addition of a generic “processor” and “memory” do not add “significantly more” to the claim than the judicial exception itself. These generic computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more, because they amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 16 and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the limitation that the spectral data generation means and the output means are connected to the database and the matching means via a communication network outside the system is found to add to “significantly more” to the claim than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
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 comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MASKELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10A-6P.
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 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL MASKELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881 24 October 2025