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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17//2026 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the claims
The argument received on June 11, 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 6, and 8 are amended. Claims 9-10 are newly added. Thus, claims 1, 5-6, and 8-10 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.
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 5-10 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 sample inlet connected to a process in a plant and configured to introduce a sample gas separated from the process into the analyzer,
a column configured to separate components in the 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 communicatively connected to the analyzer and including:
a processor configured to calculate, based on the detection result by the detector, peak separation values each indicating a separation state of component peaks in the chromatogram, and
a storage configured to store the peak separation values in association with a detected time, wherein
the processor is further configured to:
generate separation data for a predetermined period by calculating a moving average of the peak separation values stored in the storage for the predetermined period,
based on the generated separation data, generate:
a first predicted peak separation after a first period has elapsed by applying a Kalman filter to the separation data, and
a second predicted peak separation after a second period, which is longer than the first period, has elapsed, by applying a linear regression analysis to the separation data, and
diagnose a deterioration state of the column of the analyzer, wherein
the deterioration state of the column is not in replacement timing when one of the first predicted peak separation and the second predicted peak separation is greater than a threshold value, and
the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing when the one of the first predicted peak separation and the second predicted peak separation is equal to or less than the threshold value.
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, mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, and human activity-fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
For example, the limitations of “calculate, based on the detection result, peak separation values each indicating a separation state of component peaks in the chromatogram (paras. [0025]-[0032] of instant application), ” “the peak separation values in association with a detected time (see paras. [0073]-[0074] of instant application),” and “generate separation data for a predetermined period by calculating a moving average of the peak separation values stored in the storage for the predetermined period (paras. [0028], [0069], [0072] of instant application),” “based on the generated separation data, generate: a first predicted peak separation after a first period has elapsed by applying a Kalman filter to the separation data, and a second predicted peak separation after a second period, which is longer than the first period, has elapsed, by applying a linear regression analysis to the separation data (paras. [0030]-[0033], [0076], [0082] of instant application)” are mathematical calculations. Further, limitations of “diagnose a deterioration state of the column of the analyzer, wherein the deterioration state of the column is not in replacement timing when one of the first predicted peak separation and the second predicted peak separation is greater than a threshold value, and the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing when the one of the first predicted peak separation and the second predicted peak separation is equal to or less than the threshold value” are mental process (observation/evaluation/judgement) based on mathematical calculation (see paras. [0013], [0033]-[0036], [0040], [0049], [0089] of instant application).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or human mind, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” 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 sample inlet connected to a process in a plant and configured to introduce a sample gas separated from the process into the analyzer, a column configured to separate components in the 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 communicatively connected to the analyzer; storage configured to store.
The additional elements such as an analysis system, an analyzer, information processing apparatus, a storage, and a processor are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the mathematical or mental process addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further, 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, Ganguly (US 2010/0127860), Cunnien (US 2011/0147312 A1). For example, Tanaka, Ganguly, Cunnien teach an analyzer including: a sample inlet connected to a process in a plant and configured to introduce a sample gas separated from the process into the analyzer, a column configured to separate components in the 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 communicatively connected to the analyzer (Figs. 8-11; page 5, lines 5-6: page 5, lines 21-22, page 3, lines 30-33, page 5, lines 5-7, and page 7, line 34- page 8, line 1 of Tanaka; Figs. 1-2 and para. [0048]-[0050] of Ganguly; Figs. 1-2 and paras. [0042]-[0049] of Cunnien).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to diagnose a deterioration state of the column of the analyzer. Therefore, the claims have no significance more beyond the abstract idea. Further, 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. 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. 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 and 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)). This is just a processor (or microcontroller) running mathematical and/or mental processes. . Therefore, the independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5
The additional element of “the processor is further configured to set the threshold value” is mathematical calculations (see paras. [0010], [0033]).
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 insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) based on abstract idea (i.e. the peak resolution values) that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “the processor is further configured to predict respective states of the columns” is mathematical calculations (paras. [0047-[0048]).
Regarding claim 8,
The additional element of “the output unit includes a display configured to that 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. Merely “displaying” a result (i.e., first output information or the second output information predicted state of the column) is nothing more than outputting a signal or displaying result. There is established case law (electric power group for example) to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 9,
The additional element of “purchasing system configured to order a new column to replace the column when the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing, and the information processing apparatus is configured to transmit, to the purchasing system, an order for the new column automatically in response to the processor diagnosing that the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing” is certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processing. Ordering and purchasing replacement parts is fundamental economic principles or practices. The limitation of diagnosing that the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing is mental processing corresponding observation/evaluation/judgement (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 10,
The additional element of “the information processing apparatus further includes an output interface communicatively coupled to the processor and configured to output, in response to the processor diagnosing that the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing, a notification identifying the column of the analyzer for replacement before the column enters an anomaly state” is insignificant extra-solution (post-solution) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Merely “notifying” a result based on abstract idea (i.e., diagnosing that the deterioration state of the column) is nothing more than outputting a signal or displaying result. There is established case law (electric power group for example) to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (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”) further in view of Ganguly et al. (US 2010/0127860 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Ganguly”) and Short et al. (US 2020/0058316 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Short”).
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 (Figs. 8-11, gas separation column 1) 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) communicatively connected to the analyzer (page 7, line 34- page 8, line 1: analysis processing unction for analyzing and quantitatively determining the detected gas component based on the detection of gas) including:
a processor (page 7, line 34: arithmetic processing unit 33) configured to calculate, based on the detection result, peak separation 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 separation 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 separation, a sample inlet connected to a process in a plant and configured to introduce a sample gas separated from the process into the analyzer and the processor is further configured to: generate separation data for a predetermined period by calculating a moving average of the peak separation values stored in the storage for the predetermined period, based on the generated separation data, generate: a first separation after a first period has elapsed, and a second separation after a second period, which is longer than the first period, has elapsed, diagnose a deterioration state of the column of the analyzer, wherein the deterioration state of the column is not in replacement timing when one of the first separation and the second separation is greater than a threshold value, the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing when the one of the first separation and the second separation is equal to or less than the threshold value, and applying a Kalman filter or linear regression analysis to the separation data..
However, Chester teaches predicted peak separation (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 separation 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 separation 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 a sample inlet connected to a process in a plant and configured to introduce a sample gas separated from the process into the analyzer and the processor is further configured to: generate separation data for a predetermined period by calculating a moving average of the peak separation values stored in the storage for the predetermined period, based on the generated separation data, generate: a first separation after a first period has elapsed, and a second separation after a second period, which is longer than the first period, has elapsed, diagnose a deterioration state of the column of the analyzer, wherein the deterioration state of the column is not in replacement timing when one of the first separation and the second separation is greater than a threshold value, the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing when the one of the first separation and the second separation is equal to or less than the threshold value, and applying a Kalman filter or linear regression analysis to the separation data.
However, Ganguly teaches a sample inlet (Fig. 1, 106) connected to a process in a plant (Fig. 1) and configured to introduce a sample gas separated from the process (Fig. 1) into the analyzer (para. [0012]: transition analysis data generated over extended periods of time can be analyzed together with process data to evaluate column performance; para. [0097]: a graphical display of performance data may be presented on a computer monitor. The graphical display can include an interactive user interface that enables a user to select particular performance data values for observation and analysis),
the processor (para. [0097]: computer) is further configured to:
generate separation data for a predetermined period by calculating a moving average of the separation values stored in the storage for the predetermined period, based on the generated separation data (para. [0059]: transition analysis data generated over extended periods of time can be analyzed together with process data to evaluate column performance; [0060]: calculating moving averages for the plurality of process and/or transition analysis values), and
diagnose a deterioration state of the column of the analyzer (para. [0016]: use of a multivariate model analysis allows isolation and identification of the cause of decreased performance resulting from gradual column degradation; para. [0047]: measuring and monitoring column integrity),
wherein the deterioration state of the column (para. [0059]: transition analysis data generated over extended periods of time can be analyzed together with process data to evaluate column performance; [0060]: calculating moving averages for the plurality of process and/or transition analysis values) is not in replacement timing when one of the first separation and the second separation is greater than a threshold value, generate second output information indicating that the column is in replacement timing when the one of the first separation and the second separation is equal to or less than the threshold value (para. [0047]: the methods described herein have a variety of applications, such as for example: in determining or predicting when column re-packing, regeneration, or disposal should be performed; in identifying and rectifying causes and conditions of sub-optimal process performance; and, in developing an ideal model of process performance parameters falling within an acceptable range of numerous process parameter average, note that since Ganguly teaches transitional analysis to evaluated column performance (see paras. [0059] and [0060] and column re-packing, regeneration, or disposal (see para. [0047]), the above described claimed feature is obvious variation of such method).
Tanaka and Ganguly are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of evaluating Chromatography Column Performance. 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 diagnose a deterioration state of the column of the analyzer such as is described in Ganguly into Tanaka, in order to evaluate and/or monitoring chromatography column performance (Ganguly, para. [0034])
Tanaka and Ganguly do not specifically teach applying a Kalman filter or linear regression analysis to the separation data.
However, Short teaches applying a Kalman filter and linear regression analysis to the separation data (para. [0275]The algorithms may involve a method that may predict a tracklet forward, a method that may compute a cost of association between a tracklet and a new piece of data (in this case, an oscillator peak), and a method that may choose an optimal set of assignments. By way of example, the tracklet prediction algorithm may include, but are not limited to, linear prediction, and Kalman Filter prediction; para. [0276]: The output of the tracklet formation process may include a set of oscillator peaks that have been formed into tracklets).
Tanaka and Short are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of signal processing for separating a signal. 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 Kalman filter and linear regression analysis such as are described in Short into Tanaka, in order to facilitate separation of a source signal into a plurality of signal elements (Short, para. [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka in view of Chester, Ganguly, and Short teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Tanaka teaches processor (page 7, line 34- page 8, line 1: analysis processing unction)
Tanka and Chester do not specifically teach setting the threshold value.
However, Ganguly teaches setting the threshold value (para. [0047]: an acceptable range of numerous process parameter average, note that “acceptable range” reads on “threshold value”).
Tanaka and Ganguly are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of evaluating Chromatography Column Performance. 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 threshold such as is described in Ganguly into Tanaka, in order to evaluate and/or monitoring chromatography column performance (Ganguly, para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka in view of Chester, Ganguly, and Short teaches all the limitation of claim 7.
Tanaka, Chester, and Short do not specifically teach an output unit that includes a display configured to display an image indicating the deterioration stage of the column.
However, Ganguly teaches an output unit that includes a display configured to display an image para. [0097]: a graphical display of performance data may be presented on a computer monitor. The graphical display can include an interactive user interface that enables a user to select particular performance data values for observation and analysis) indicating the deterioration stage of the column (para. [0012]: transition analysis data generated over extended periods of time can be analyzed together with process data to evaluate column performance; para. [0016]: use of a multivariate model analysis allows isolation and identification of the cause of decreased performance resulting from gradual column degradation; para. [0047]: measuring and monitoring column integrity).
Tanaka and Ganguly are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of evaluating chromatography column performance. 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 unit such as is described in Ganguly into Tanaka, in order to evaluate and/or monitoring chromatography column performance (Ganguly, para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka in view of Chester, Ganguly, and Short teaches all the limitation of claim 1, Tanaka, Chester, Short do not specifically teach that the information processing apparatus is connected to a purchasing system configured to order a new column to replace the column when the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing, and the information processing apparatus is configured to transmit, to the purchasing system, an order for the new column automatically in response to the processor diagnosing that the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing.
However, Ganguly teaches that the information processing apparatus (para. [0097]: computer) is connected to a purchasing system configured to order a new column to replace the column when the deterioration state of the column (para. [0016]: use of a multivariate model analysis allows isolation and identification of the cause of decreased performance resulting from gradual column degradation; para. [0047]: measuring and monitoring column integrity) is in replacement timing (para. [0047]: the methods described herein have a variety of applications, such as for example: in determining or predicting when column re-packing, regeneration, or disposal should be performed; in identifying and rectifying causes and conditions of sub-optimal process performance; para. [0101]: an automated alert system is triggered to notify users of the determination, note that since Ganguly teaches “automatic alert” in para. [0101] and “column re-packing, regeneration, or disposal” in para. [0047], the limitation of “order a new column to replace the column when the deterioration state of the column” is an inherent or an obvious variation of such method), and
the information processing apparatus (para. [0097]: computer) is configured to transmit, to the purchasing system, an order for the new column automatically (para. [0101]: an automated alert system is triggered to notify users of the determination) in response to the processor (para. [0097]: computer) diagnosing that the deterioration state of the column (paras. [0016], [0047]: see above) is in replacement timing (para. [0047]: the methods described herein have a variety of applications, such as for example: in determining or predicting when column re-packing, regeneration, or disposal should be performed; in identifying and rectifying causes and conditions of sub-optimal process performance; para. [0101]: an automated alert system is triggered to notify users of the determination, note that since Ganguly teaches “automatic alert” in para. [0101] and “column re-packing, regeneration, or disposal” in para. [0047], the limitation of “transmit, to the purchasing system, an order for the new column automatically” is an inherent or an obvious variation of such method).
Tanaka and Ganguly are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of evaluating chromatography column performance. 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 information processing apparatus such as is described in Ganguly into Tanaka, in order to evaluate and/or monitoring chromatography column performance (Ganguly, para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka in view of Chester, Ganguly, and Short teaches all the limitation of claim 1, Tanaka, Chester, and Short do not specifically teach that the information processing apparatus further includes an output interface communicatively coupled to the processor and configured to output, in response to the processor diagnosing that the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing.
However, Ganguly teaches that the information processing apparatus further includes an output interface communicatively coupled to the processor (para. [0097]: a graphical display of performance data may be presented on a computer monitor. The graphical display can include an interactive user interface that enables a user to select particular performance data values for observation and analysis) and configured to output (para.[ 0097]: graphical display; para. [0101]: an automated alert system is triggered to notify users of the determination), in response to the processor diagnosing that the deterioration state of the column is in replacement timing (para. [0047]: the methods described herein have a variety of applications, such as for example: in determining or predicting when column re-packing, regeneration, or disposal should be performed), a notification (para. [0101]: an automated alert system is triggered to notify users of the determination) identifying the column of the analyzer for replacement before the column enters an anomaly state (para. [0047]: determining or predicting when column re-packing, regeneration, or disposal should be performed).
Tanaka and Ganguly are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of evaluating chromatography column performance. 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 information processing apparatus such as is described in Ganguly into Tanaka, in order to evaluate and/or monitoring chromatography column performance (Ganguly, para. [0034]).
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”), Ganguly, Short, 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, Ganguly, and Short teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Tanaka teaches the processor (page 7, line 34: arithmetic processing unit 33).
Tanaka, Chester, Ganguly, and Short do not specifically teach that storage is further configured to store the peak separation values of columns in association with respective identification numbers of the columns and the detected specific time, and the processor is further configured to predict respective deterioration states of the columns.
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 separation values 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, Ganguly, Short, and Krufka do not specifically teach that the processor is further configured to predict respective states of the columns.
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 respective 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]).
Tanaka, Chester, Short, and Krufka do not specifically teach deterioration states of the columns.
However, Ganguly teaches deterioration states of the columns (para. [0016]: use of a multivariate model analysis allows isolation and identification of the cause of decreased performance resulting from gradual column degradation; para. [0047]: measuring and monitoring column integrity).
Tanaka and Ganguly are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of evaluating chromatography column performance. 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 deterioration states of the columns such as is described in Ganguly into Tanaka, in order to evaluate and/or monitoring chromatography column performance (Ganguly, para. [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsukamoto et al. (US 2020/0072804 A1) teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) storing computer readable program code for monitoring a state of a chromatography apparatus embodied therein that: receives one or more monitoring conditions that each include a determination condition for parameters related to measurements taken using the chromatography apparatus; and displays, in parallel and using a combination operational expression: a first conditional expression based on at least one of the monitoring conditions that make up a first combined conditional expression.
Shibamoto et al. (US 2022/0170896 A1) teaches that a gas analyzer includes: a column that separates a component in a sample gas; a valve that switches, between a test sample gas and a standard sample gas, the sample gas to be supplied to the column; a valve that adjusts an introduction amount of the sample gas to be supplied to the column; a detector that detects, by gas chromatography, the component in the sample gas separated by the column; and a control device.
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 571-270-5628. 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
Prosecution Insights