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 .
Priority
Application 18/204,413 filed on 06/01/2023 claims foreign priority to JAPAN 2022-114804 filed on 07/19/2022.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to a communication submitted on 06/24/20206 wherein claims 1-2 and 4 are pending and have been considered below. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
Abstract contains 180 words which is greater than 150 words.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda Kazuma, hereinafter Maeda, WO2020194582A1 in view of Tanaka Hirokazu, hereinafter Tanaka, JP 6770368B2.
Regarding Independent claim 1 Maeda discloses:
“A data processing system” (Maeda, fig. 1, 4th paragraph of 3rd page: The control unit (4) of fig. 1 is a personal computer with an installed analysis program where a personal computer would include a processor.)
“a data holder that holds analysis data including mass spectrometry data acquired by a mass spectrometer in an analysis of a sample using a chromatograph mass spectrometer and measurement data acquired by a detector, that is not mass spectrometer, in the analysis of the sample” (Maeda, fig. 1, last paragraph of 2nd page: Maeda teaches “liquid chromatograph mass spectrometer of this embodiment is roughly classified into a liquid chromatograph 1, a mass spectrometer 2, and a control unit 4. . .” (last paragraph of 2nd page) where the liquid chromatograph 1 contains a UV detector 15 (1st paragraph of 3rd page) where the UV detector discloses “a detector, that is not mass spectrometer.” Additionally, “the acquisition of the measurement data by the liquid chromatograph 1, and the mass spectrometer 2 are started at the same time” (5th paragraph of 5th page) where the UV and mass spectrum data are stored in the storage unit 41 (7th and 8th paragraph of 4th page) disclosing a “data holder.”)
“a data processor configured to perform data processing by using the analysis data held in the data holder” (Maeda, fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 9, 4th paragraph of 3rd page, 4th – 6th page, 9th -10th page: The control unit (4) of fig. 1 is a personal computer with an installed analysis program (4th paragraph of 3rd page) where a personal computer would include a “processor.” Figure 2 and figure 9 are flowcharts which depict analysis of the UV and mass spectrum data (see also 4th – 6th page and 9th -10th page).)
“an information displayer configured to display data processed by the data processor” (Maeda, fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 9, 4th paragraph of 3rd page: Figure 1 depicts a display unit 7 (displayer) and the last step of fig. 2, step 12, and fig. 9, step 30, both state displaying the chromatogram with additional information disclosing displaying “data processed by the data processor.”)
“wherein the data processor is configured to create a chromatogram based on the measurement data, and to identify an overlapped peak a peak portion in which peaks of a plurality of components overlap by using a correspondence relationship between the chromatogram and the mass spectrometry data” (Maeda, fig. 10, 10th page, 14th page: Maeda teaches “a plurality of components (compounds B and C) are co-eluted at the position (time) of peak 12 of the present analysis example” where “co-eluted” discloses overlapping peaks as depicted in C and B of fig 10 and “along with the UV chromatogram, their additional information and the peak of the mass chromatogram are displayed (chromatogram based on the measurement data). Therefore, it can be easily identified that a plurality of components are co-eluted during the peak time period (plurality of components overlap)” (6th paragraph of 10th page) where “in order to identify a set of mass peaks having a common intensity ratio in mass spectrum data at a plurality of time points as corresponding to one component, co-elution information is efficiently extracted. The presence or absence of co-elution can be grasped on the UV chromatogram” (2nd paragraph of 14th page) disclosing a “correspondence relationship between the chromatogram and the mass spectrometry data” as the control unit 14 (data processing center) uses the correspondence of the chromatogram to the mass spectrometry data to determine the peak fraction where peaks of multiple components in the peak fraction on the chromatogram overlap to form one peak shape as co-eluting peaks.)
“when displaying the chromatogram, the information displayer is configured to display the overlapped peak in a different mode from that of another peak which is different from the overlapped peak on the chromatogram so that a user can visually recognize whether or not each peak on the chromatogram is the overlapped peak” (Maeda, fig. 10, 10th page: Maeda teaches the when “a plurality of components (compounds B and C) are co-eluted at the position (time) of the peak 12”(6th paragraph 10th page) and “The mass chromatogram is superimposed and displayed in a color and line type (broken line in fig. 10) different from the UV chromatogram” (4th paragraph 10th page, see also fig. 10) “Therefore, it can be easily identified that a plurality of components are co-eluted during the peak time period” (4th paragraph 10th page). Different colors or line types or combinations disclose “a different mode from that of another peak which is different from the overlapped peak on the chromatogram.”)
Maeda does not teach:
“the data processor is configured to extract individual mass chromatograms of each of the plurality of components included in the overlapped peak on the chromatogram from the mass spectrometry data, and when a user designates the overlapped peak on the chromatogram, the information displayer is configured to display the individual mass chromatograms of each of the plurality of components included in the designated overlapped peak in a difference area from an area displaying the chromatogram in the same screen”
Tanaka teaches:
“the data processor is configured to extract individual mass chromatograms of each of the plurality of components included in the overlapped peak on the chromatogram from the mass spectrometry data, and when a user designates the overlapped peak on the chromatogram, the information displayer is configured to display the individual mass chromatograms of each of the plurality of components included in the designated overlapped peak in a difference area from an area displaying the chromatogram in the same screen” (Tanaka, figs 9, 11, 12, ¶ 0054-¶ 0065: Tanaka teaches area 81 in figs 9, 11, and 12 as “an area in which mass chromatograms corresponding to all mass-to-charge ratios [m/z]” are displayed (¶ 0057). Additionally, “The baseline correction area 82 is an area for individually displaying the mass chromatograms selected by the chromatogram selection unit 17 in the subsequent steps. The baseline correction region 82 can also display the TICC, and can display a plurality of selected mass chromatograms in sequence while scrolling at the bottom of the TICC display” (¶ 0062) where area 82 is depicted as “a difference area from an area displaying the chromatogram in the same screen” in figs. 9, 11, and 12. Displaying “a plurality of selected mass chromatograms in sequence while scrolling at the bottom of the TICC display” discloses “when a user designates the overlapped peak on the chromatogram, the information displayer is configured to display the individual mass chromatograms of each of the plurality of components included in the designated overlapped peak”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the system for performing peak analysis on a chromatograms as taught by Maeda by including displaying the individual mass chromatograms of the components included in the overlapped peak in a different area of the same screen, different from the area in which the overlapped peak is displayed as taught by Tanaka because separating the chromatograms into distinct screen areas helps users to process information faster and avoid mistakes as it reduces visual clutter with the intent to “improve the accuracy of the qualitative analysis” (Tanaka, ¶ 0098).
Regarding claim 2 Maeda teaches:
“the information displayer is configured to give a color different from that of the other peak to the overlapped peak identified as the coelution peak as the different mode” ((Maeda, fig. 10, 10th page, 14th page: Maeda teaches the when “a plurality of components (compounds B and C) are co-eluted at the position (time) of the peak 12”(6th paragraph 10th page) and “The mass chromatogram is superimposed and displayed in a color and line type (broken line in fig. 10) different from the UV chromatogram” (4th paragraph 10th page, see also fig. 10) “Therefore, it can be easily identified that a plurality of components are co-eluted during the peak time period” (4th paragraph 10th page). The chromatograms are displayed in different colors disclosing “a color different from that of the other peak” where different colors disclose “the different mode.”)
Regarding claim 4 Maeda teaches:
“the data processor is configured to create a peak table based on the analysis data, the peak table including peak information on each peak on the chromatogram, the peak information showing whether or not each peak portion is the overlapped peak in a list, and the information displayer is configured to display the peak table created by the data processor based on a request from a user” (Maeda, fig. 10, 11, and 12, page 10-11: Fig. 10 depicts the UV chromatogram and mass chromatogram superimposed with peak time and mass-to-charge ratios (4th paragraph of page 10). Fig. 11 depicts a graph of the peaks, the peak time, and mass-to-charge ratio with asterisks indicating co-elution (3rd paragraph of page 11) where co-elution discloses “overlapped”. Fig. 12 depicts the peak information in tabular form (4th paragraph of page 11). Moreover, the user “inputs the mass-to-charge ratio of the ions that characterize the compound for each compound to be measured” where “the value of the mass-to-charge ratio input here may be one for one compound or may be plural” (4th paragraph of 9 page). Maeda uses “the mass-to-charge ration of the ions generated from the compounds A to F” as input where this information is used to create fig. 10, 11, and 12, disclosing the displayed “peak table” is “created by the data processor based on a request from a user.”)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Tanaka as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of in further view of Wang et al., hereinafter Wang, U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0242489 A1 in view of Srinivasan et al., hereinafter Srinivasan, U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0084807 A1.
Regarding claim 5 Maeda as modified by Tanaka teaches:
“the data holder holds a plurality of pieces of analysis data acquired by analysis performed by using a plurality of analysis methods different from each other for a same sample by using the chromatograph mass spectrometer” (Maeda, fig. 1, 4th and 5th page: Maeda teaches “the acquisition of the measurement data by the liquid chromatograph 1, and the mass spectrometer 2 are started at the same time” (5th paragraph of 5th page) disclosing a “plurality of analysis methods different from each other” where the “components contained in the sample solution” are “detected by the ion detector 232 of the mass spectrometer 2 after being detected by the UV detector 15” (5th paragraph of page 5) disclosing both methods are analyzing the “same sample using the chromatograph mass spectrometer.” Moreover, the UV and mass spectrum data are stored in the storage unit 41 (7th and 8th paragraph of 4th page) disclosing the “data holder holds a plurality of pieces of analysis data.”)
Maeda as modified by Tanaka does not teach:
“the data processor is configured to create a plurality of chromatograms based on each of the plurality of pieces of analysis data, set any of the plurality of chromatograms as a reference chromatogram, and execute peak identification for identifying whether a peak on a chromatogram other than the reference chromatogram among the plurality of chromatograms corresponds to any peak on the reference chromatogram”
whether or not to exclude an overlapped peak from a target of the peak identification can be set by a user in advance, and
in a case where excluding the overlapped peak from a target of the peak identification is set in advance, the data processor is configured to exclude a peak portion identified as the overlapped peak from a target of the peak identification.”
Wang teaches:
“the data processor is configured to create a plurality of chromatograms based on each of the plurality of pieces of analysis data, set any of the plurality of chromatograms as a reference chromatogram, and execute peak identification for identifying whether a peak portion on a chromatogram other than the reference chromatogram among the plurality of chromatograms corresponds to any peak portion on the reference chromatogram” (Wang teaches “collecting a set of chromatograms from a predefined number of subsequent measurements, selecting one of the chromatograms of the set as a reference chromatogram” (¶ 0011-¶ 0012) where “a set of chromatograms” discloses “a plurality of chromatograms” and “a predefined number of subsequent measurements” discloses “the plurality of pieces of analysis data.” Moreover, each “chromatogram in the window is aligned to the reference chromatogram by shifting the chromatogram along the time axis so that the best correlation between the chromatogram and the reference chromatogram is reached” (¶ 0026) after this is done peak analysis is performed and the peak results are output (¶ 0028) disclosing “whether a peak portion on a chromatogram other than the reference chromatogram among the plurality of chromatograms corresponds to any peak portion on the reference chromatogram.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the system for performing peak analysis on a chromatograms as taught by Maeda by including using a reference chromatogram when analyzing peaks as taught by Wang because using a reference chromatogram enables confident identification by comparing unknown data against known, controlled standards in order to “reduce the computational effort and time while maintaining high accuracy in processing chromatograms obtained by a process gas chromatograph” (Wang, ¶ 0009).
Srinivasan teaches:
“whether or not to exclude co-eluted peak from a target of the peak identification can be set by a user in advance, and in a case where excluding the co-eluted peak from a target of the peak identification is set in advance, the data processor is configured to exclude a peak portion identified as the co-eluted peak from a target of the peak identification” (Srinivasan teaches “A user may want to manually set the first analyte time interval to exclude co-eluting peaks” (¶ 0049) and “identification steps 426 and 428 can be based on first and second analyte time” (¶ 0056) thereby disclosing a co-eluted peak can be excluded and disclosing excluding a “peak portion identified as the co-eluted peak from a target of the peak identification” because if the coelution peaks are excluded they would also be excluded from peak identification.)
Maeda as modified by Tanaka teaches co-eluted peaks disclose “overlapped peaks” (see claim 1 above) therefore the combination of Maeda and Srinivasan teach the limitation “whether or not to exclude an overlapped peak from a target of the peak identification can be set by a user in advance, and in a case where excluding the overlapped peak from a target of the peak identification is set in advance, the data processor is configured to exclude a peak portion identified as the overlapped peak from a target of the peak identification.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the system for performing peak analysis on a chromatograms as taught by Maeda by including excluding a coelution peak from the peak analysis as disclosed by Srinivasan because sometimes the peaks appear due to impurities and not the sample itself. Excluding these peaks increases data integrity leading to higher peak analysis accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (remarks), filed on 06/24/2026, have been fully considered.
Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive with respect to the amendments. New grounds for rejection are necessitated by the amendments and are presented above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McClure, U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0083063 A1 teaches a method for detecting peaks in spectroscopic data including overlapping peaks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 M-F.
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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights