DETAILED ACTION
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 is directed towards “A non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed on a processor, control or perform one or more of the steps of claim 1”.
Claim 19 is directed towards “A non-transitory program element, wherein the program element, when being executed by one or a plurality of processors, is configured to carry out or control one or more of the steps of claim 1”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 19 is/are 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 the claim(s) are directed towards a “non-transitory program element”. Examiner advises applicant that the claim should be directed towards a “non-transitory computer readable medium”. Computer programs are non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1 recites
determining a sample property data set characterizing properties of a prototype fluidic sample and comprising at least part of components of an adaptation fluidic sample for experimental execution of separation methods on a sample separation apparatus,
…
providing a separation method data set,
comprising
a plurality of data subsets,
characterizing separation methods for the sample separation apparatus;
providing an apparatus data set characterizing properties of the sample separation apparatus;
and
determining the sample property data set characterizing properties of the prototype fluidic sample,
by
carrying out a numerical analysis based on the apparatus data set and on the separation method data set
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 6 recites
carrying out a method transfer by determining a target separation method for separating a fluidic sample by a target sample separation apparatus by modifying an initial separation method for an initial sample separation apparatus,
…
providing
a first initial data set characterizing the initial separation method
and
a second initial data set characterizing properties of the target sample separation apparatus;
executing a data determination operation,
wherein
the data determination operation comprises
a selection of data stored in a database, according to known analytes of a fluidic sample under consideration for the method transfer;
composing
the selected data as a third initial data set, characterizing properties of the fluidic sample;
and
determining a target data set characterizing the target separation method
by
carrying out a numerical analysis based on the first initial data set, the second initial data set, and the third initial data set
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 20 recites
determining a target separation method for separating a fluidic sample by a target sample separation apparatus by modifying an initial separation method for an initial sample separation apparatus,
…
provide
a first initial data set characterizing the initial separation method,
a second initial data set characterizing properties of the target sample separation apparatus,
a third initial data set characterizing properties of the fluidic sample,
and
a fourth initial data set characterizing properties of the initial sample separation apparatus; and
determine a target data set characterizing the target separation method
by
carrying out a numerical analysis based on the first initial data set, the second initial data set, the third initial data set, and the fourth initial data set
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 6, 20, Claim(s) 2-5, 7-19 recite(s)
wherein
the determining comprises
iteratively varying the sample property data set, starting from an initial guess, until a simulated result of executing at least part of the separation methods,
characterized by the data subsets contained in the separation method data set, on the sample separation apparatus,
characterized by the apparatus data set, for separating the prototype fluidic sample, matches with at least part of experimental results of executing the separation methods,
characterized by data subsets contained in the separation method data set, on the sample separation apparatus.
comprising:
simulating execution of at least part of separation methods,
characterized by data subsets contained in the separation method data set, on the sample separation apparatus;
experimentally executing at least part of separation methods of the separation method data set,
characterized by data subsets contained in the separation method data set, on the sample separation apparatus;
determining the sample property data set based on a comparison of results of the simulated execution and the experimental execution;
and
storing the sample property data set in a database.
comprising
at least one of the following features:
wherein
the process comprises
simulating execution of the separation methods on the sample separation apparatus based on the apparatus data set characterizing properties of the sample separation apparatus;
wherein
the process comprises
comparing the results by fitting the result of the simulated execution to the result of the experimental execution using properties of the prototype fluidic sample as fitting parameters;
wherein
simulating execution comprises
considering differences between an ideal behavior and a real behavior of the sample separation apparatus when executing the separation methods;
wherein
the process comprises
comparing a simulated chromatogram resulting from the simulated execution with an experimental chromatogram resulting from an experimental execution of the separation methods on the sample separation apparatus;
wherein
the process comprises
comparing results from the simulated execution with results from the experimental execution of the separation methods on the sample separation apparatus by carrying out a numerical analysis.
wherein
the sample property data set comprises at least one of the following:
information characterizing a behavior of the prototype fluidic sample during separation in the sample separation apparatus;
information characterizing an interaction of the prototype fluidic sample with a sample separation unit;
information characterizing a temperature behavior of the prototype fluidic sample;
information characterizing properties of one or more analytes of the prototype fluidic sample.
wherein
the determining comprises
iteratively varying the target data set in comparison with the first initial data set until a simulated result of executing the target separation method,
characterized by the varied target data set, on the target sample separation apparatus,
characterized by the second initial data set, for separating the fluidic sample,
characterized by the third initial data set, matches with an experimental result of executing the initial separation method,
characterized by the first initial data set, on the initial sample separation apparatus.
comprising
simulating execution of the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus based on a fourth initial data set characterizing properties of the initial sample separation apparatus.
comprising
at least one of the following features:
wherein
simulating execution comprises
considering differences between an ideal behavior and a real behavior of the initial sample separation apparatus when executing the initial separation method;
wherein
the process comprises
comparing a simulated chromatogram resulting from the simulated execution with an experimental chromatogram resulting from an experimental execution of the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus;
wherein
the process comprises
comparing results from the simulated execution with results from an experimental execution of the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus by carrying out a numerical analysis.
wherein
determining the target data set comprises
simulating execution of the initial separation method on the target sample separation apparatus.
wherein
the simulating execution comprises
considering differences between an ideal behavior and a real behavior of the target sample separation apparatus when executing the initial separation method.
wherein
determining the target data set comprises
analyzing a result of the simulated execution together with the third initial data set.
comprising at least one of the following features:
wherein
the analyzing comprises
carrying out a numerical analysis;
wherein
determining the target data set comprises
determining a simulated chromatogram based on a result of the analyzing.
comprising,
once or a plurality of times, iteratively repeating at least one of:
the simulating execution;
analyzing a result of the simulated execution together with the third initial data set;
determining a simulated chromatogram based on a result of the analyzing to determine the target data set.
wherein
determining the target data set comprises
determining a simulated chromatogram based on a result of the analyzing,
and
the process further comprises at least one of the following:
the process further comprises
comparing the determined simulated chromatogram with an experimental chromatogram obtained by experimentally executing the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus;
the process further comprises
comparing the determined simulated chromatogram with an experimental chromatogram obtained by experimentally executing the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus,
and
iteratively repeating until the determined simulated chromatogram matches the experimental chromatogram.
wherein
the third initial data set comprises at least one of the following:
information characterizing a behavior of the fluidic sample during separation in the initial sample separation apparatus;
information characterizing an interaction of the fluidic sample with a sample separation unit;
information characterizing a temperature behavior of the fluidic sample;
information characterizing properties of an analyte, in particular of different analytes, of the fluidic sample.
comprising at least one of the following:
determining an actual composition of a mobile phase present at a sample separation unit of at least one of the initial sample separation apparatus and the target sample separation apparatus;
determining an actual composition of a mobile phase present at a sample separation unit of at least one of the initial sample separation apparatus and the target sample separation apparatus,
wherein
the determining of the actual composition is done experimentally
determining an actual composition of a mobile phase present at a sample separation unit of at least one of the initial sample separation apparatus and the target sample separation apparatus,
wherein
the determining of the actual composition is done by simulation
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. a data provision unit configured to; a determining unit configured to; A non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed on a processor, control or perform one or more of the steps of claim 1; A non-transitory program element, wherein the program element, when being executed by one or a plurality of processors, is configured to carry out or control one or more of the steps of claim 1);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. for separating a fluidic sample by a target sample separation apparatus).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WENNBERG ET AL. (Wennberg, Tero, et al. "Use of DryLab for Simulation of TLC Separation and Method Transfer from TLC to HPLC." JPC-Journal of Planar Chromatography-Modern TLC 19.108 (2006): 118-123.) (hereinafter “WENNBERG”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, 18, 19, WENNBERG teaches simulation of TLC separations and the BRI of:
determining a sample property data set characterizing properties of a prototype fluidic sample and comprising at least part of components of an adaptation fluidic sample for experimental execution of separation methods on a sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 3),
…
providing a separation method data set, comprising a plurality of data subsets, characterizing separation methods for the sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 3);
providing an apparatus data set characterizing properties of the sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 2.4);
and
determining the sample property data set characterizing properties of the prototype fluidic sample, by carrying out a numerical analysis based on the apparatus data set and on the separation method data set (See, e.g., Section(s) 2.4, 3; See also, e.g., Table 1).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, WENNBERG teaches simulation of TLC separations and the BRI of:
carrying out a method transfer by determining a target separation method for separating a fluidic sample by a target sample separation apparatus by modifying an initial separation method for an initial sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Summary),
…
providing
a first initial data set characterizing the initial separation method (See, e.g., Section(s) 2.4)
and
a second initial data set characterizing properties of the target sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 2.4);
executing a data determination operation, wherein the data determination operation comprises a selection of data stored in a database, according to known analytes of a fluidic sample under consideration for the method transfer (See, e.g., Section(s) 3);
composing the selected data as a third initial data set, characterizing properties of the fluidic sample (See, e.g., Section(s) 2.4);
and
determining a target data set characterizing the target separation method by carrying out a numerical analysis based on the first initial data set, the second initial data set, and the third initial data set (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 20, WENNBERG teaches simulation of TLC separations and the BRI of:
determining a target separation method for separating a fluidic sample by a target sample separation apparatus by modifying an initial separation method for an initial sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Summary),
…
a data provision unit (See, e.g., Summary)
configured to
provide
a first initial data set characterizing the initial separation method (See, e.g., Section(s) 2.4),
a second initial data set characterizing properties of the target sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 2.4),
a third initial data set characterizing properties of the fluidic sample (See, e.g., Section(s) 3),
and
a fourth initial data set characterizing properties of the initial sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 2.4); and
a determining unit (See, e.g., Summary)
configured to
determine a target data set characterizing the target separation method by carrying out a numerical analysis based on the first initial data set, the second initial data set, the third initial data set, and the fourth initial data set (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 2, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the determining comprises
iteratively varying the sample property data set, starting from an initial guess, until a simulated result of executing at least part of the separation methods, characterized by the data subsets contained in the separation method data set, on the sample separation apparatus, characterized by the apparatus data set, for separating the prototype fluidic sample, matches with at least part of experimental results of executing the separation methods, characterized by data subsets contained in the separation method data set, on the sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
comprising:
simulating execution of at least part of separation methods, characterized by data subsets contained in the separation method data set, on the sample separation apparatus; experimentally executing at least part of separation methods of the separation method data set, characterized by data subsets contained in the separation method data set, on the sample separation apparatus; determining the sample property data set based on a comparison of results of the simulated execution and the experimental execution; and storing the sample property data set in a database (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
comprising
at least one of the following features:
wherein
the process comprises simulating execution of the separation methods on the sample separation apparatus based on the apparatus data set characterizing properties of the sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4);
wherein the process comprises comparing the results by fitting the result of the simulated execution to the result of the experimental execution using properties of the prototype fluidic sample as fitting parameters (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4);
wherein simulating execution comprises considering differences between an ideal behavior and a real behavior of the sample separation apparatus when executing the separation methods (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4);
wherein the process comprises comparing a simulated chromatogram resulting from the simulated execution with an experimental chromatogram resulting from an experimental execution of the separation methods on the sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4);
wherein the process comprises comparing results from the simulated execution with results from the experimental execution of the separation methods on the sample separation apparatus by carrying out a numerical analysis (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the sample property data set comprises at least one of the following:
information characterizing a behavior of the prototype fluidic sample during separation in the sample separation apparatus; information characterizing an interaction of the prototype fluidic sample with a sample separation unit; information characterizing a temperature behavior of the prototype fluidic sample; information characterizing properties of one or more analytes of the prototype fluidic sample (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 7, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the determining comprises
iteratively varying the target data set in comparison with the first initial data set until a simulated result of executing the target separation method, characterized by the varied target data set, on the target sample separation apparatus, characterized by the second initial data set, for separating the fluidic sample, characterized by the third initial data set, matches with an experimental result of executing the initial separation method, characterized by the first initial data set, on the initial sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
comprising
simulating execution of the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus based on a fourth initial data set characterizing properties of the initial sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 9, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
comprising
at least one of the following features:
wherein
simulating execution comprises considering differences between an ideal behavior and a real behavior of the initial sample separation apparatus when executing the initial separation method; wherein the process comprises comparing a simulated chromatogram resulting from the simulated execution with an experimental chromatogram resulting from an experimental execution of the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus; wherein the process comprises comparing results from the simulated execution with results from an experimental execution of the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus by carrying out a numerical analysis (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 10, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
determining the target data set comprises
simulating execution of the initial separation method on the target sample separation apparatus (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 11, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the simulating execution comprises considering differences between an ideal behavior and a real behavior of the target sample separation apparatus when executing the initial separation method (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 12, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
determining the target data set comprises analyzing a result of the simulated execution together with the third initial data set (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 13, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
comprising at least one of the following features:
wherein the analyzing comprises carrying out a numerical analysis; wherein determining the target data set comprises determining a simulated chromatogram based on a result of the analyzing (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 14, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
comprising,
once or a plurality of times, iteratively repeating at least one of:
the simulating execution; analyzing a result of the simulated execution together with the third initial data set; determining a simulated chromatogram based on a result of the analyzing to determine the target data set (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 15, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
determining the target data set comprises determining a simulated chromatogram based on a result of the analyzing, and
the process further comprises at least one of the following:
the process further comprises comparing the determined simulated chromatogram with an experimental chromatogram obtained by experimentally executing the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus; the process further comprises comparing the determined simulated chromatogram with an experimental chromatogram obtained by experimentally executing the initial separation method on the initial sample separation apparatus, and iteratively repeating until the determined simulated chromatogram matches the experimental chromatogram (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 16, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the third initial data set comprises at least one of the following:
information characterizing a behavior of the fluidic sample during separation in the initial sample separation apparatus; information characterizing an interaction of the fluidic sample with a sample separation unit; information characterizing a temperature behavior of the fluidic sample; information characterizing properties of an analyte, in particular of different analytes, of the fluidic sample (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 17, WENNBERG teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
WENNBERG further teaches the BRI of:
comprising at least one of the following:
determining an actual composition of a mobile phase present at a sample separation unit of at least one of the initial sample separation apparatus and the target sample separation apparatus; determining an actual composition of a mobile phase present at a sample separation unit of at least one of the initial sample separation apparatus and the target sample separation apparatus, wherein the determining of the actual composition is done experimentally determining an actual composition of a mobile phase present at a sample separation unit of at least one of the initial sample separation apparatus and the target sample separation apparatus, wherein the determining of the actual composition is done by simulation (See, e.g., Section(s) 3, 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit