Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/378,558

GAS CHROMATOGRAPH ASSISTANCE DEVICE AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPH ASSISTANCE METHOD

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Oct 10, 2023
Examiner
GO, RICKY
Art Unit
2857
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Shimadzu Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
804 granted / 1008 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1050
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§103
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1008 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/10/2023 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 forms). 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a gas chromatograph assistance device that is used together with a gas chromatograph, comprising: a saving amount evaluator that evaluates a saving amount of a resource caused by stopping of the gas chromatograph; a consumption amount evaluator that evaluates a consumption amount of the resource caused by recovery of the gas chromatograph from a stop state; and an outputter that presents an evaluation value in regard to the saving amount and the consumption amount to a user or controls an operation state of the gas chromatograph based on the evaluation value, Claim 14 recites a gas chromatograph assistance method, of assisting use of a gas chromatograph, which is performed by a computer, including: evaluating a saving amount of a resource caused by stopping of the gas chromatograph; evaluating a consumption amount of the resource caused by recovery of the gas chromatograph from a stop state; and presenting an evaluation value in regard to the saving amount and the consumption amount to a user or controlling an operation state of the gas chromatograph based on the evaluation value… and thus grouped as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (claim 1) “an outputter that presents an evaluation value” and (claim 14) “presenting an evaluation value in regard to the saving amount and the consumption amount to a user” are considered insignificant post-solution activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claims 1 and 14) “evaluator and performed by a computer” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see “Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4/ Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices” – page 55, second column). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the outputting and presenting fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the evaluator and computer are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 2-13 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SAITO [US 2017/0356890 A1]. Regarding claim 1, SAITO teaches a gas chromatograph assistance device (control unit) that is used together with a gas chromatograph (operation of the gas chromatograph is controlled by a control unit - figure 2, 0034), comprising: a saving amount evaluator that evaluates a saving amount of a resource (target flow rate) caused by stopping of the gas chromatograph (instruction to stop - 0049); a consumption amount evaluator that evaluates a consumption amount (check flow rate of carrier gas is checked) of the resource caused by recovery of the gas chromatograph from a stop state (step S402 - 0050); and an outputter that presents an evaluation value in regard to the saving amount and the consumption amount to a user or controls an operation state of the gas chromatograph based on the evaluation value (temperature is set by temperature control unit – 0051) (performed by the control unit … a process for switching over a setting regarding the column (column setting switching), a process for switching over a setting regarding the detector (detector setting switching), and a process for switching over settings regarding the sample vaporization chamber (sample vaporization chamber setting switching) are initiated – 0042). Regarding claim 2, SAITO teaches the gas chromatograph assistance device according to claim 1, further comprising a calculator that calculates a result of comparison between the saving amount and the consumption amount as the evaluation value (flow rate of the carrier gas is continuously checked according to a detection signal from the flow rate sensor, until the flow rate of the carrier gas becomes not greater than the target flow rate - 0050). Regarding claim 3, SAITO teaches the gas chromatograph assistance device according to claim 2, wherein the outputter brings the gas chromatograph into the stop state in a case in which the evaluation value calculated by the calculator satisfies a predetermined condition (gas chromatograph from the ON state to the OFF state – 0050). Regarding claim 4, SAITO teaches the gas chromatograph assistance device according to claim 2, further comprising a weighting setter that sets weighting for the evaluation value in regard to any one of a first resource and a second resource of the resource based on designation made by the user (an operator may operate the operation unit to set in advance the number N of stages to any value, the number N being used when the flow rate of the carrier gas is decreased in stages – 0058). Regarding claim 14, SAITO teaches a gas chromatograph assistance method, of assisting use of a gas chromatograph, which is performed by a computer (control unit) (operation of the gas chromatograph is controlled by a control unit - figure 2, 0034), including: evaluating a saving amount of a resource (target flow rate) caused by stopping of the gas chromatograph (instruction to stop - 0049); evaluating a consumption amount (check flow rate of carrier gas is checked) of the resource caused by recovery of the gas chromatograph from a stop state (step S402 - 0050); and presenting an evaluation value in regard to the saving amount and the consumption amount to a user or controlling an operation state of the gas chromatograph based on the evaluation value (temperature is set by temperature control unit – 0051) (performed by the control unit … a process for switching over a setting regarding the column (column setting switching), a process for switching over a setting regarding the detector (detector setting switching), and a process for switching over settings regarding the sample vaporization chamber (sample vaporization chamber setting switching) are initiated – 0042). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 5 is objected to because the closest prior art, SAITO [US 2017/0356890 A1], fails to anticipate or render obvious a stop time period determiner that determines a predicted stop period of time of the gas chromatograph; and a unit saving amount determiner that determines a saving amount of the resource per unit time in the gas chromatograph as a unit saving amount, wherein the saving amount evaluator evaluates the saving amount based on the predicated stop period of time and the unit saving amount, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant. Claim 10 is objected to because the closest prior art, SAITO [US 2017/0356890 A1], fails to anticipate or render obvious a recovery time period determiner that determines a predicted recovery period of time of the gas chromatograph; and a unit consumption amount determiner that determines a consumption amount of the resource per unit time in the gas chromatograph as a unit consumption amount, wherein the consumption amount evaluator evaluates the consumption amount based on the predicated recovery period of time and the unit consumption amount, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant. Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mustacich et al. (US Patent Number 6,217,829 B1) discloses a system for operating a gas chromatograph system while reducing the power consumption; KANAZAWA et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0146500 A1) discloses a controlling apparatus that maintains reception of electricity when the analyzing apparatus is in a power-on state, and is capable of receiving a control signal and stopping electricity supply to a unit of the analyzing apparatus at a first timing based on the control signal, and restarting the electricity supply to the unit at a second timing based on the control signal to suppress the electricity consumption when the analysis is not executed and facilitate the restart of the analysis. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12576747
Electrified Vehicle Control Using Traction Battery Array-Based Multi-Cell State Estimation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571846
BATTERY PACK AND STATE OF CHARGE ESTIMATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571505
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PIPELINE WASTE GAS SAFETY TREATMENT OF SMART GAS BASED ON INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566217
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ESTIMATING BATTERY CELL CAPACITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560652
Diagnostic Lighting Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+9.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1008 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month