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 .
Status of the claims
The argument received on February 3, 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 14-19, 23-24, 28, 32, 34, and 36-39 are amended. Claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, 13, 22, 25-27, 29-31, 33, 35, 40, and 41 are cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 14-21, 23-24, 28, 32, 34, and 36-39 are currently pending.
Responses to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed January 26, 2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the rejection below is related to previous Applicant’s argument, Applicant’s previous arguments are addressed as follows:
On the page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant allege that “the evidence shows that the claimed invention improves a specific industrial technology. When considered as a whole, each of the amended independent claims recites a concrete, non-generic industrial system that applies specific measurement techniques to achieve an improved way to achieve accurate estimation of deposit thickness inside pipes.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Applicant has argued that the abstract idea itself is significant. However, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Applicant has not, respectfully, demonstrated with evidence why the abstract idea itself would amount to more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. Therefore, the pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). Further, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Tanaka (JP 4210181 B2), Kita (US 20220137006), Krufka (WO 2019/2039372 A1), Rubinstein (US 2016/0252484 A1), Gorenstein et al. (US 2010/0187414 A1)).
Applicant’s amendments filed January 26, 2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
An analysis system comprising:
an analyzer including:
a column configured to separate components in a sample gas; and
a detector configured to detect the components separated by the column and output a chromatogram of the components generated based on a detection result; and an information processing apparatus including:
a processor configured to calculate, based on the detection result, peak resolution values each indicating a separation state of component peaks in the chromatogram; and
a storage configured to store the peak resolution values in association with a detected time, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate resolution data for a predetermined period by calculating a moving average of the peak resolution values stored in the storage for the predetermined period, based on the generated resolution data, generate:
a first predicted peak resolution after a first period has elapsed, and
a second predicted peak resolution after a second period, which is longer than the first period, has elapsed,
generate first output information indicating that the column is not in replacement timing when one of the first predicted peak resolution and the second predicted peak resolution is greater than a threshold value,
generate second output information indicating that the column is in replacement timing when the one of the first predicted peak resolution and the second predicted peak resolution is equal to or less than the threshold value, and
output the first output information or the second output information.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
For example, the limitations of “calculate, based on the detection result, peak resolution values each indicating a separation state of component peaks in the chromatogram (paras. [0025]-[0032] of instant application)” and “generate resolution data for a predetermined period by calculating a moving average of the peak resolution values stored in the storage for the predetermined period, based on the generated resolution data (paras. [0028], [0072] of instant application), generate: a first predicted peak resolution after a first period has elapsed, and a second predicted peak resolution after a second period, which is longer than the first period (paras. [0030]-[0033] of instant application), has elapsed, generate first output information indicating that the column is not in replacement timing when one of the first predicted peak resolution and the second predicted peak resolution is greater than a threshold value, generate second output information indicating that the column is in replacement timing when the one of the first predicted peak resolution and the second predicted peak resolution is equal to or less than the threshold value (paras. [0033]-[0036] of instant application)” are mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: an analysis system (preamble); an analyzer including: a column configured to separate components in a sample gas; a detector configured to detect the components separated by the column and output a chromatogram of the components generated based on a detection result; and an information processing apparatus; store the peak resolution values in association with a detected time.
The additional elements such as an analyzer, information processing apparatus, a storage, and a processor are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further, the addition elements of “output the first output information or the second output information” is post-solution activity, insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Tanaka, Kita (US 20220137006)). For example, Tanaka and Kita teach an analyzer including: a column configured to separate components in a sample gas and a detector configured to detect the components separated by the column (page 3, lines 30-33, page 5, lines 21-22, page 5, lines 5-7 of Tanaka; paras. [0036], [0044] of Kita). Further, Tanaka and Kita teach storing the peak resolution values in association with a detected time (page 2, lines 26-31 and page 9, lines 10 of Tanaka; para. [0053], [0058] of Kita). The independent claim 1, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4
The additional element of “the processor is configured to generate the first predicted peak resolution and the second predicted peak resolution predicts the first state and the second state based on different calculating methods” is mathematical calculations (see paras. [0009], [0048], [0065], [0085] of instant application).
Regarding claim 5
The additional element of “the processor is further configured to predicts a future resolution as a state of the column; set the threshold value, and determines whether to replace the column by comparing the future resolution with the threshold value” is mathematical calculations (see paras. [0033], [0057]-[0060], [0076], [0082], [0085]).
Regarding claim 6
The additional element of “the storage is further configured to store the peak resolution values resolutions of columns in association with respective identification numbers of the columns and the detected specific time” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (para. [0031], [0034], [0042] of Krufka; paras. [0002], [0005], [0007] of Rubinstein (US 2016/0252484 A1); paras. [0013], [0099] of Gorenstein et al. (US 2010/0187414 A1)).
The additional element of “the processor is further configured to predict respective states of the columns” is mathematical calculations (paras. [0047-[0048]).
Regarding claim 7
The additional element of “the processor is further configured to cause further comprising: an output unit to output the first output information or the second output information predicted state of the column” is insignificant extra-solution (post-solution) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 8
The additional element of “the output unit includes a display configured to display an image indicating the first output information or the second output information predicted state of the column” is insignificant extra-solution (post-solution) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 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, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (JP 4210181 B2) in view of Chester et al. (US 2002/0010566 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Chester”) and Yamada et al. (JP 201536808 A, hereinafter referred to as “Yamada”).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches an analysis system (Figs. 2-4) comprising:
an analyzer (page 5, lines 21-22: an expiration component analyzer) including:
a column configured to separate components in a sample gas (page 3, lines 30-33: the peak waveform of the detection output for each gas component of the detector 30 is not a normal distribution curve, and the peak waveform differs depending on the type of gas component. In order to separate and accurately detect these gas components, it is necessary to register the peak waveform of the detection output in the memory 33a for each of the gas components to be detected ); and
a detector configured to detect the components separated by the column (page 5, lines 5-6: the components in the gas derived from the gas separation column 1 are detected by the detector 14) and output a chromatogram of the components generated based on a detection result (page 5, lines 6-7: this detection information is input to the control unit 15 to be analyzed and a chromatogram is obtained. It is displayed on the display unit 16); and
an information processing apparatus (page 7, line 34: arithmetic processing unit 33) including:
a processor (page 7, line 34: arithmetic processing unit 33) configured to calculate, based on the detection result, peak resolution values (Fig. 5: peak curve, C, D, E , F, D) each indicating a separation state of component peaks in the chromatogram (Fig. 5 and page 5, lines 5-6: the components in the gas derived from the gas separation column 1 are detected by the detector 14); and
a storage configured to store the peak resolution values in association with a detected time (page 2, lines 26-31: the storage means in which the concentration data of each is registered in advance and each of one or more peaks appearing in the detection output of the detection means based on the data registered in the storage means. The gas component type is identified by comparing the peak waveform of the gas component whose appearance time is approximately equal to the appearance time of each peak).
Tanaka does not specifically teach predicted peak resolution.
However, Chester teaches predicted peak resolution (para. [0069]: 2) developing a mathematical model to predict retention time and peak width of a solute peak, wherein the model relates retention to mobile phase strength; para. [0070]: 3) predicting retention time and peak width using the model developed in step 2); [0085] Rs means resolution between two adjacent peaks and is calculated by [0086] Rs=2(tR2−tR1)/(Wb1+Wb2), wherein the subscripts 1 and 2 identify the peaks).
Tanaka and Chester are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of chromatography. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predicted peak resolution such as is described in Chester into Tanaka, in order to allow user-adjustable parameters one at a time (i.e., one in each experiment) until adequate resolution between all solute peaks of interest to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time (Chester, para. [0007]).
Tanaka and Chester do not specifically teach that the processor is further configured to: generate resolution data for a predetermined period by calculating a moving average of the peak resolution values stored in the storage for the predetermined period, based on the generated resolution data, generate: a first resolution after a first period has elapsed, and a second resolution after a second period, which is longer than the first period, has elapsed, generate first output information indicating that the column is not in replacement timing when one of the first resolution and the second resolution is greater than a threshold value, generate second output information indicating that the element is in replacement timing when the one of the first resolution and the second resolution is equal to or less than the threshold value, and output the first output information or the second output information.
However, Yamada teaches the processor (Fig. 1, maintenance determination apparatus 300 including CPU) is further configured to:
generate resolution data for a predetermined period by calculating a moving average (page 8, lines 26-27: the average value of the monitoring parameter values in the daily unit interval is calculated as the feature value representing the data characteristics) of the resolution values (page 11, lines 47-48: it is possible to perform maintenance visits by preparing appropriate tools, replacement parts, etc. for the prevention and resolution of failures, and it is possible to shorten the time required for maintenance work compared to the conventional case) stored in the storage for the predetermined period, based on the generated resolution data (page 8, lines 33-35: the monitoring parameter time-series data stored in the monitoring parameter time-series data storage unit 302 ), generate:
a first predicted peak resolution after a first period has elapsed, and a second predicted resolution after a second period, which is longer than the first period, has elapsed (page 11, lines 47-48: it is possible to perform maintenance visits by preparing appropriate tools, replacement parts, etc. for the prevention and resolution of failures, and it is possible to shorten the time required for maintenance work compared to the conventional case ),
generate first output information (page 8, lines 33-35: The time-series data change point detection unit 303 detects a change point at which the time-series transition tendency of the monitoring parameter changes based on the monitoring parameter time-series data stored in the monitoring parameter time-series data storage unit 302) indicating that the column is not in replacement timing when one of the first resolution and the second resolution is greater than a threshold value (Fig. 1, threshold value setting unit 307), generate second output information (page 8, lines 33-35: see above) indicating that the column is in replacement timing when the one of the first resolution and the second resolution is equal to or less than the threshold value (page 9, line 32: FIG. 4 shows an example of predictor probability data stored in the maintenance data / predictor probability storage unit 305; Fig. 1, threshold value setting unit 307; page 11, lines 47-48: it is possible to perform maintenance visits by preparing appropriate tools, replacement parts, etc. for the prevention and resolution of failures, and it is possible to shorten the time required for maintenance work compared to the conventional case, note that since Yamada teaches “predictor probability data” (see page 9, line 32) and replacement parts (i.e., column) based on threshold setting (see Fig. 1 and page 11, lines 47-48), therefore, generate first and second output information regarding replacement timing such as is described above would be an obvious variation of such methods), and
output the first output information or the second output information (page 2, lines 39-43: output unit 309; page 13, line 8: display devices for displaying and outputting various information).
Tanaka and Yamada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of maintenance determination including image forming device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the generating resolution data using threshold such as is described in Yamada into Tanaka, in order to the allow timing for instructing the execution of the maintenance work to be optimized according to the characteristics of the failure occurring in the monitored apparatus (Yamada, page 6, lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka in view of Chester and Yamada teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Chester teaches that the processor (para. [0130]: processor) is configured to generate the first predicted peak resolution and the second predicted peak resolution predicts the first state and the second state based on different calculating methods (para. [0069]: 2) developing a mathematical model to predict retention time and peak width of a solute peak, wherein the model relates retention to mobile phase strength; para. [0070]: 3) predicting retention time and peak width using the model developed in step 2); [0071] 4) performing a multivariate optimization of user adjustable parameters affecting retention time and peak width, note that the above feature of paras. [0069], [0070], and “multivariate optimization of user adjustable parameters affecting retention time and peak width” reads on “predicts the first state and the second state based on different calculating methods”).
Tanaka and Chester are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of chromatography. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the generating the first predicted peak resolution and the second predicted peak resolution such as is described in Chester into Tanaka, in order to allow user-adjustable parameters one at a time (i.e., one in each experiment) until adequate resolution between all solute peaks of interest to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time (Chester, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka in view of Chester and Yamada teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Chester teaches that the processor (para. [0130]: processor) is further configured to predicts a future resolution as a state of the column (para. [0030]: FIG. 4 represents a preferred method for predicting retention times and peak widths for solute peaks in a sample 400. First, the time to deliver the sample to the column inlet from the injector is calculated).
Tanaka and Chester are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of chromatography. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predicting a future resolution as a state of the column such as is described in Chester into Tanaka, in order to allow user-adjustable parameters one at a time (i.e., one in each experiment) until adequate resolution between all solute peaks of interest to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time (Chester, para. [0007]).
Tanka and Chester do not specifically teach setting the threshold value, and determines whether to replace the parts by comparing the resolution with the threshold value.
However, Yamada teaches setting the threshold value (page 3, lines 30-32: the threshold value setting unit 307 is a threshold value that serves as a criterion for determining whether or not the image forming apparatus 100 needs to be maintained based on the histogram generated by the histogram generating unit 306 for each image forming apparatus 100 and each type of failure), and determines whether to replace the parts by comparing the resolution with the threshold value (; page 11, lines 47-48: it is possible to perform maintenance visits by preparing appropriate tools, replacement parts, etc. for the prevention and resolution of failures, and it is possible to shorten the time required for maintenance work compared to the conventional case).
Tanaka and Yamada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of maintenance determination including image forming device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the setting the threshold value, and determining whether to replace the parts by comparing the resolution with the threshold value such as is described in Yamada into Tanaka, in order to the allow timing for instructing the execution of the maintenance work to be optimized according to the characteristics of the failure occurring in the monitored apparatus (Yamada, page 6, lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka in view of Chester and Yamada teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Tanaka and Yamada do not specifically teach that the processor is further configured to cause further comprising: an output unit to output the first output information or the second output information predicted state of the column.
However, Chester teaches that the processor is further configured to cause further comprising: an output unit to output the first output information or the second output information predicted state of the column (para. [0053] 6) determining the mobile phase pressure necessary at the column inlet; para. [0069]: 2) developing a mathematical model to predict retention time and peak width of a solute peak, wherein the model relates retention to mobile phase strength; para. [0070]: 3) predicting retention time and peak width using the model developed in step 2); para. [0130]: display adapter 650 is used to directly connect a display device (not shown) to the computer system 600. Network adapter 660 is used to connect the computer system 600 to other computer systems).
Tanaka and Chester are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of chromatography. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the output such as is described in Chester into Tanaka, in order to allow user-adjustable parameters one at a time (i.e., one in each experiment) until adequate resolution between all solute peaks of interest to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time (Chester, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 8. Tanaka in view of Chester and Yamada teaches all the limitation of claim 7.
Tanaka and Yamada do not specifically teach that the output unit includes a display configured to display an image indicating the first output information or the second output information predicted state of the column
However, Chester teaches that that the output unit includes a display configured to display an image indicating the first output information or the second output information predicted state of the column (para. [0041]: (vi) optionally displaying the accumulated peak width of the solute peak. This method may further comprise vii) repeating steps i-vi) for at least one successive solute peak; para. [0053] 6) determining the mobile phase pressure necessary at the column inlet; para. [0069]: 2) developing a mathematical model to predict retention time and peak width of a solute peak, wherein the model relates retention to mobile phase strength; para. [0070]: 3) predicting retention time and peak width using the model developed in step 2).
Tanaka and Chester are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of chromatography. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the output such as is described in Chester into Tanaka, in order to allow user-adjustable parameters one at a time (i.e., one in each experiment) until adequate resolution between all solute peaks of interest to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time (Chester, para. [0007]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (JP 4210181 B2) in view of Chester et al. (US 2002/0010566 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Chester”), Yamada et al. (JP 201536808 A, hereinafter referred to as “Yamada”) and Krufka et al. (“WO 2019/2039372 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Krufka”) (cited in IDS dated October 24, 2019).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka in view of Chester and Yamada teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Tanaka, Chester, and Yamada do not specifically teach that storage is further configured to store the peak resolution values resolutions of columns in association with respective identification numbers of the columns and the detected specific time.
However, Krufka teaches that storage (para. [0031]: memory 306) is further configured to store the peak resolution values resolutions of columns in association with respective identification numbers of the columns (para. [0031]: column 302 could consist of one or many columns; para. [0031]: FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of an example gas chromatographic system 300 according to certain embodiments. An injection port 301 receives a sample (not shown) to be analyzed. The sample is carried by a carrier gas (not shown) through a separation column 302 under carefully controlled conditions of pressures, temperatures, and flows, before reaching detector 303....Such information may be stored and accessed through memory 30…column 302 could consist of one or many columns to achieve the component separation, note that “such information may be stored and accessed through memory 30” and “column 302 could consist of one or many columns to achieve the component separation” reads on “respective identification numbers of the columns”) and the detected specific time (para. [0034]: this region of interest(s) will typically be the time range in which components of interest will elute during a sample run).
Tanaka and Krufka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of chromatography. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the storing the peak resolution values resolutions of columns such as is described in Chester into Tanaka, in order to evaluate performance of a chromatographic system having a detector operable to output signals (Krufka, para. [0016]).
Tanaka, Yamada, and Krufka do not specifically teach that the processor is further configured to predict states of the column.
However, Chester teaches that the processor is further configured to predict states of the column (para. [0030]: FIG. 4 represents a preferred method for predicting retention times and peak widths for solute peaks in a sample 400. First, the time to deliver the sample to the column inlet from the injector is calculated).
Tanaka and Chester are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of chromatography. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predicting states of the column such as is described in Chester into Tanaka, in order to allow user-adjustable parameters one at a time (i.e., one in each experiment) until adequate resolution between all solute peaks of interest to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time (Chester, para. [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe (US 2021/0341441 A1) teaches an analysis assistance device includes an estimator that estimates distribution of measurement quality index data using a plurality of analysis condition data to be provided to an analysis device and a plurality of measurement data obtained in the analysis device based on the plurality of analysis condition data, and a measurement quality index outputter that outputs for display a region where the measurement quality index data is not less than a predetermined threshold value as a design space.
Nogami et al. (US 20240361346) teaches an automatic analyzer is provided that is capable of quickly responding when an abnormal process occurs, accurately grasping an abnormal state, and reducing frequencies of early abnormality diagnosis and component adjustment or replacement of the automatic analyzer.
Novaes-Card et al. (US 20240011954) teaches the present invention providing a gas chromatography system (GC) including a GC column configured for a chromatographic separation of a sample comprising one or more analytes, a GC detector connected to the exit of the GC column, and a controller connected to the GC system. The controller is configured to generate a simulated chromatographic separation using a chromatographic model that calculates at least one chromatographic parameter of the analyzed sample.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5618. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858