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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 24 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all claims satisfy the unity of invention requirement under PCT Article 17(3)(a) and PCT Rule 13. These grounds have been fully considered and are persuasive. The requirement for the election of Species A or Species B (Office Action mailed 18 February 2026) is therefore withdrawn in whole. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application and are examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
FIGs. 4 and 6 contain labels a), b), and c) which are not referenced in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Specification
The use of the term Bluetooth®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-4, 8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du et al. (“Improved peak detection in mass spectrum by incorporating continuous wavelet transform-based pattern matching”, 2006), hereinafter Du.
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses a method for identifying peaks in a mass spectrum, the method comprising:
accessing a mass spectrum, having an intensity signal, generated for analysis of a sample (FIG. 2a);
performing a wavelet transformation, on the intensity signal to generate a wavelet space representation of the intensity signal (page 2060, column 1, paragraph 1);
generating a scale-space-processing (SSP) response signal from the wavelet space representation of the intensity signal (FIG. 2b);
identifying a first wavelet scale for a first local maximum in the SSP response signal (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph, lines 12-18);
based on the first wavelet scale, detect a first baseline intensity signal (page 2061, section 2.2, paragraph 2);
subtracting the first baseline intensity signal from the intensity signal to generate a first adjusted intensity signal (page 2061, section 2.2, paragraph 2); and
detecting one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal (page 2061, column 2, section titled Identify the peaks based on the ridge lines).
Regarding claim 3, Du as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Du discloses that detecting the one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal includes performing a wavelet transformation on the first adjusted intensity signal (page 2063, column 1: “identified peaks by wavelet denoising method”).
Regarding claim 4, Du as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Du discloses that detecting the one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal includes using the first wavelet scale as an optimal scale for a peak-finding algorithm (page 2065, column 1, paragraph 4: “optimizing the algorithm and codes…selecting several optimized CWT scales”).
Regarding claim 8, Du discloses a method for identifying peaks in a mass spectrum, the method comprising:
accessing a mass spectrum having an intensity signal (FIG. 2a);
transforming the intensity signal to a representation indicative of peak widths (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph);
based on the representation, detecting a plurality of dominant peak widths, including at least a first dominant peak width and a second dominant peak width (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph: multiple peak widths are estimated based on the local maxima of the CWT coefficients at each scale);
based on the first dominant peak width, detect a first baseline intensity signal (page 2061, section 2.2, paragraph 2);
subtracting the first baseline intensity signal from the intensity signal to generate a first adjusted intensity signal (page 2061, section 2.2, paragraph 2); and
detecting one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal (page 2061, column 2, section titled Identify the peaks based on the ridge lines).
Regarding claim 10, Du as applied to claim 8 discloses the method of claim 8.
In addition, Du discloses that detecting the one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal includes performing a wavelet transformation on the first adjusted intensity signal (page 2063, column 1: “identified peaks by wavelet denoising method”).
Regarding claim 11, Du as applied to claim 8 discloses the method of claim 8.
In addition, Du discloses that detecting the one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal includes using the first dominant peak width as an optimal scale for a peak-finding algorithm (page 2065, column 1, paragraph 4: “optimizing the algorithm and codes…selecting several optimized CWT scales”).
Regarding claim 12, Du as applied to claim 8 discloses the method of claim 8.
In addition, Du discloses that transforming the intensity signal to a representation indicative of peak widths includes performing a wavelet transformation on the intensity signal to generate a wavelet space representation of the intensity signal (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Du as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
In addition, Du discloses that detecting the plurality of dominant peak widths includes:
generating a scale-space-processing (SSP) response signal from the wavelet space representation of the intensity signal (FIG. 2b);
identifying a first local maximum in the SSP response signal corresponding to the first dominant peak width (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph, lines 12-18); and
identifying a second local maximum in the SSP response signal corresponding to the second dominant peak width (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph, lines 12-18).
Regarding claim 14, Du as applied to claim 8 discloses the method of claim 8.
In addition, Du discloses identifying a compound in a sample based on at least one of the detected one or more peaks of the first adjusted intensity signal or the one or more peaks of the second adjusted intensity signal (page 2062, section 3).
Regarding claim 15, Du discloses a system for performing mass spectrometry (page 2062, section 3), the system comprising:
an ion source configured to ionize a sample to generate ions (page 2059, column 2, paragraph 2, surface enhanced laser desorption ionization-time of flight (SELDI-TOF) spectroscopy; an ion source is an inherent component of a SELDI-TOF spectroscopy system);
a mass analyzer and a detector configured to detect the ions (page 2059, column 2, paragraph 2, surface enhanced laser desorption ionization-time of flight (SELDI-TOF) spectroscopy; a mass analyzer and a detector are inherent components of a SELDI-TOF spectroscopy system);
one or more processors (page 2065, column 1, paragraph 4); and
a memory (page 2065, column 1, paragraph 4; a memory is an inherent component of a computer) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
based on the detected ions, generating an intensity signal of a mass spectrum (FIG. 2a);
transforming the intensity signal to a representation indicative of peak widths (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph);
based on the representation, detecting a plurality of dominant peak widths, including at least a first dominant peak width and a second dominant peak width (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph: multiple peak widths are estimated based on the local maxima of the CWT coefficients at each scale);
based on the first dominant peak width, detect a first baseline intensity signal (page 2061, section 2.2, paragraph 2);
subtracting the first baseline intensity signal from the intensity signal to generate a first adjusted intensity signal (page 2061, section 2.2, paragraph 2); and
detecting one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal (page 2061, column 2, section titled Identify the peaks based on the ridge lines).
Regarding claim 17, Du as applied to claim 15 discloses the system of claim 15.
In addition, Du discloses that transforming the intensity signal to a representation indicative of peak widths includes performing a wavelet transformation on the intensity signal to generate a wavelet space representation of the intensity signal (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Du as applied to claim 17 discloses the system of claim 17.
In addition, Du discloses that detecting the plurality of dominant peak widths includes:
generating a scale-space-processing (SSP) response signal from the wavelet space representation of the intensity signal (FIG. 2b);
identifying a first local maximum in the SSP response signal corresponding to the first dominant peak width (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph, lines 12-18); and
identifying a second local maximum in the SSP response signal corresponding to the second dominant peak width (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph, lines 12-18).
Regarding claim 19, Du as applied to claim 15 discloses the system of claim 15.
In addition, Du discloses that detecting the one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal includes performing a wavelet transformation on the first adjusted intensity signal (page 2063, column 1: “identified peaks by wavelet denoising method”).
Regarding claim 20, Du as applied to claim 15 discloses the system of claim 15.
In addition, Du discloses that detecting the one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal includes using the first dominant peak width as an optimal scale for a peak-finding algorithm (page 2065, column 1, paragraph 4: “optimizing the algorithm and codes…selecting several optimized CWT scales”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2, 5-7, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du as respectively applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of Liutkus (“Scale-Space Peak Picking”, 2015), hereinafter Liutkus.
Regarding claim 2, Du as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Du discloses identifying a second wavelet scale for a second local maximum in the SSP response signal (page 2060, column 2, last paragraph, lines 8-18); and
based on the second wavelet scale, detect a second baseline intensity signal (page 2061, section 2.2, paragraph 2).
Du fails to disclose subtracting the second baseline intensity signal from the first baseline intensity signal to generate a second adjusted intensity signal; and detecting one or more peaks in the second adjusted intensity signal.
However, Liutkus discloses iteratively processing an adjusted intensity signal to generate a new adjusted intensity signal, and detecting one or more peaks in the new adjusted intensity signal (page 2, section II (Scale-Space Peak Picking), column 2: the intensity signal v is processed to produce a second adjusted intensity signal v; the second adjusted intensity signal v is then processed, said processing being iteratively repeated until “the end of the procedure”, at which point peaks are detected from the adjusted intensity signal).
Liutkus discloses that the iterative signal processing comprising signal smoothing, not baseline removal. However, the disclosure of Du demonstrates that the function of baseline removal is known in the art of mass spectrometry signal processing. Du also shows that substituting baseline removal for smoothing in a signal processing algorithm yields the predictable result of avoiding problems resulting from signal smoothing, such as false positives for peak detection, while still remaining sensitive to weaker peaks (Du, page 2062, column 2, last paragraph). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Du in view of Liutkus to include subtracting the second baseline intensity signal from the first baseline intensity signal to generate a second adjusted intensity signal; and detecting one or more peaks in the second adjusted intensity signal because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 5, Du in view of Liutkus as applied to claim 2 discloses the method of claim 2.
In addition, Du discloses adding the detected one or more peaks in the first adjusted intensity signal to a peak list (FIG. 3, identified peaks).
In addition, Liutkus discloses adding the detected one or more peaks in the second adjusted intensity signal to the peak list (page 2, section II (Scale-Space Peak Picking), column 2, paragraph 3, “the new set P”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Du in view of Liutkus to include adding the detected one or more peaks in the second adjusted intensity signal to the peak list, based on the additional teachings of Liutkus that this step improves peak identification confidence by comparing peaks which are identified in multiple iterations of the signal processing (Liutkus, page 2, section II (Scale-Space Peak Picking), column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 6, Du in view of Liutkus as applied to claim 5 discloses the method of claim 5.
In addition, Du discloses including characteristics of the one or more detected peaks in the peak list, wherein the characteristics include at least one of optimum scale, SSP response path length, SSP response value, or a signal-to-noise ratio (FIG. 3, signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio).
Regarding claim 7, Du in view of Liutkus as applied to claim 5 discloses the method of claim 5.
In addition, Du discloses identifying a compound of the sample based on the peaks in the peak list (page 2062, section 3).
Regarding claim 9, Du as applied to claim 8 discloses the method of claim 8.
In addition, Du discloses, based on the second dominant peak width, detect a second baseline intensity signal (page 2061, section 2.2, paragraph 2).
Du fails to disclose subtracting the second baseline intensity signal from the first baseline intensity signal to generate a second adjusted intensity signal; and detecting one or more peaks in the second adjusted intensity signal.
However, Liutkus discloses iteratively processing an adjusted intensity signal to generate a new adjusted intensity signal, and detecting one or more peaks in the new adjusted intensity signal (page 2, section II (Scale-Space Peak Picking), column 2: the intensity signal v is processed to produce a second adjusted intensity signal v; the second adjusted intensity signal v is then processed, said processing being iteratively repeated until “the end of the procedure”, at which point peaks are detected from the adjusted intensity signal).
Liutkus discloses that the iterative signal processing comprising signal smoothing, not baseline removal. However, the disclosure of Du demonstrates that the function of baseline removal is known in the art of mass spectrometry signal processing. Du also shows that substituting baseline removal for smoothing in a signal processing algorithm yields the predictable result of avoiding problems resulting from signal smoothing, such as false positives for peak detection, while still remaining sensitive to weaker peaks (Du, page 2062, column 2, last paragraph). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Du in view of Liutkus to include subtracting the second baseline intensity signal from the first baseline intensity signal to generate a second adjusted intensity signal; and detecting one or more peaks in the second adjusted intensity signal because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 16, Du as applied to claim 15 discloses the system of claim 15.
In addition, Du discloses that the operations further comprise: based on the second dominant peak width, detect a second baseline intensity signal (page 2061, section 2.2, paragraph 2).
Du fails to disclose subtracting the second baseline intensity signal from the first baseline intensity signal to generate a second adjusted intensity signal; and detecting one or more peaks in the second adjusted intensity signal.
However, Liutkus discloses iteratively processing an adjusted intensity signal to generate a new adjusted intensity signal, and detecting one or more peaks in the new adjusted intensity signal (page 2, section II (Scale-Space Peak Picking), column 2: the intensity signal v is processed to produce a second adjusted intensity signal v; the second adjusted intensity signal v is then processed, said processing being iteratively repeated until “the end of the procedure”, at which point peaks are detected from the adjusted intensity signal).
Liutkus discloses that the iterative signal processing comprising signal smoothing, not baseline removal. However, the disclosure of Du demonstrates that the function of baseline removal is known in the art of mass spectrometry signal processing. Du also shows that substituting baseline removal for smoothing in a signal processing algorithm yields the predictable result of avoiding problems resulting from signal smoothing, such as false positives for peak detection, while still remaining sensitive to weaker peaks (Du, page 2062, column 2, last paragraph). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Du in view of Liutkus to include subtracting the second baseline intensity signal from the first baseline intensity signal to generate a second adjusted intensity signal; and detecting one or more peaks in the second adjusted intensity signal because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lieb (WO Patent No. 2017028838 A1), hereinafter Lieb (English machine translation provided), teaches a method for identifying peaks in a mass spectrum, the method comprising: accessing a mass spectrum, having an intensity signal, generated for analysis of a sample; and performing a wavelet transformation on the intensity signal to generate a wavelet space representation of the intensity signal.
Emanuele, II et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0274142 A1), hereinafter Emanuele, II, teaches a method for identifying peaks in a mass spectrum, the method comprising: detecting a first baseline intensity signal; and subtracting the first baseline intensity signal from the intensity signal to generate a first adjusted intensity signal.
Shu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0383979 A1), hereinafter Shu, teaches adding detected peaks in intensity signals to a peak list, and a signal-to-noise ratio of the one or more detected peaks in the peak list.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights