DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 3/23/2026.
Claims 1-10 and 28-33 have been elected, and are pending. Claims 11-27 are withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to, as the body of the claim appears to have been inadvertently deleted from the claims filed in response to the restriction requirement. For examination purposes, the previously filed version of Claim 5 is being considered. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-10 and 28-33 in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that there is not a significant search burden. This is not found persuasive because Applicant does not challenge the finding that each group represents subject matter that is separately classified.
The MPEP states that to demonstrate serious search burden, the examiner must show separate classification. See MPEP § 808.02. Applicant offers conjecture that a search would return a small number of references, however this misapprehends how the examination process is conducted. A significant number of references must always be considered when examining a set of claims, as novelty and non-obviousness cannot be established without conducting a thorough review of the teachings of the prior art. Showing separate classifications establishes an examination burden because this review would have to be conducted for two separate areas of the prior art.
As the establishment of a search burden has not been adequately traversed, the requirement is proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda, U.S. Patent No. 10,236,167 (“Noda”).
With regard to Claim 1, Noda teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 1, data storage section 21) storing instructions that, when executed, direct at least one processor of a computing device for mass spectrometry to:
obtain, based on a series of mass spectra acquired over time with a first sampling rate as analytes elute from a separation system during an experiment, a first mass chromatogram dataset representing a detected intensity of ions derived from the analytes and having a selected m/z as a function of time over a time period (Col. 1, lines 14-33 describe obtaining a profile spectrum, which includes a measured waveform identifying an intensity signal corresponding to an ion having a certain mass-to-charge ratio. Fig. 3 shows that the waveform identifies intensity over time, and that the input waveform data samples the intensity once per second); and
generate, based on the first mass chromatogram dataset and an upsampling model trained to upsample mass chromatogram data, a second mass chromatogram dataset representing an estimated intensity of the ions as a function of time over the time period, the second mass chromatogram dataset having a second sampling rate that is greater than the first sampling rate (Col. 2, line 66 – Col. 3, line 31 describe that the waveform is processed to calculate peak information, where an upsampling processor performs upsampling based on the time series data obtained by the actual measurement of the intensity, to insert additional interpolation data and thereby increasing the number of data points forming the peak on the waveform. Upsampling can be carried out by any of a number of different upsampling models).
Claim 28 recites a system which is carried out by executing the instructions stored on the medium of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 9, Noda teaches that the second sampling rate is at least twice the first sampling rate. Col. 5, lines 43-62 describes that the upsampling can be by a factor of two, and that any appropriate factor can be used, such as four.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda, in view of Lacout, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2023/0003699 (“Lacout”).
With regard to Claim 2, Lacout teaches that obtaining the first mass chromatogram dataset comprises adjusting a subset of acquisition points for the selected m/z obtained from the series of mass spectra to a uniform sampling period. [0033] describes that the system can resample a chromatogram data set to correspond to a regular frequency, such as 1 data point per second.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Lacout with Noda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by preprocessing data in order to improve accuracy, reduce computational load, or otherwise optimize the process of carrying out operations on a chromatogram data set.
Claims 3 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda, in view of Engel, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10/068,557 (“Engel”).
With regard to Claim 3, Noda, in view of Engel teaches that the upsampling model comprises a trained autoencoder-decoder network. Noda teaches at Col. 3, lines 25-30 that waveforms can be processed using a sampling converter used in audio processing for the upsampling and interpolation. Engel teaches at Col. 4, lines 13-44 describe that a decoder and encoder network can be trained in the style of an autoencoder to learn embeddings that represent musical characteristics. Learned embeddings can be used to interpolate timbre to create new types of sound waveforms. Col. 20, lines 60-65 describes that the embeddings can be upsampled. Therefore, Engel teaches multiple ways of adding data points to a data set that involve additional samples added to waveforms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Engel with Noda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by leveraging AI technology to provide increased performance over other methods of interpolation and upsampling.
Claim 29 recites a system which is carried out by executing the instructions stored on the medium of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 4-8 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda, in view of Maeda, U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0196614 (“Maeda”).
With regard to Claim 4, Noda, in view of Maeda teaches that the first sampling rate is less than a sampling rate requirement for the experiment; and the second sampling rate is equal to or greater than the sampling rate requirement for the experiment. Noda teaches at Col. 5, line 43 – Col. 6, line 2 describe that a peak waveform can be upsampled multiple times, by factors of 2, 4, or other numbers. Maeda teaches at [0009] that a number of points per peak can be required as output using a set sampling rate, meaning a user can set a sampling rate below required, which can then be upsampled to above the required rate as taught in Noda.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Maeda with Noda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling users to set a sampling rate, thereby increasing user control over experiments.
Claim 30 recites a system which is carried out by executing the instructions stored on the medium of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Maeda teaches that the instructions determine the sampling rate requirement; and set the first sampling rate based on the sampling rate requirement. [0009] describes that a user determines the data points required per peak, and sets a sampling rate accordingly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Maeda with Noda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling users to set a sampling rate, thereby increasing user control over experiments.
Claim 31 recites a system which is carried out by executing the instructions stored on the medium of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Maeda teaches that the first sampling rate is set as a percentage of the sampling rate requirement. [0009] describes a user setting a sampling rate for an experiment. Therefore, a user may determine a percentage of a required rate as the setting, such as 100%, or higher or lower as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Maeda with Noda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling users to set a sampling rate, thereby increasing user control over experiments.
Claim 32 recites a system which is carried out by executing the instructions stored on the medium of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, Maeda teaches that the sampling rate requirement is at least six acquisitions per elution peak. [0009] describes a general requirement of a sampling rate of 10 data points per peak.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Maeda with Noda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling users to set a sampling rate, thereby increasing user control over experiments.
Claim 33 recites a system which is carried out by executing the instructions stored on the medium of Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 8, Maeda teaches that the first sampling rate is between two and five acquisitions per peak. [0009]-[0010] describe that users can have difficulty setting an appropriate sampling rate, leading to settings that do not capture the required number of data points. Therefore, a user may enter a setting that results in a lower than required number of points, resulting in a sampling rate of two to five acquisitions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Maeda with Noda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling users to set a sampling rate, thereby increasing user control over experiments.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda, in view of Wasim, U.S. PGPUB No. 2025/0259713 (“Wasim”).
With regard to Claim 10, Wasim teaches that the series of mass spectra comprise MS2 spectra acquired by performing a targeted analysis or a data independent acquisition (DIA) analysis of a sample comprising the analytes. [0018] describes the use of a tandem mass spectrometer in data independent acquisition, where [0059] describes obtaining spectra therefrom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Wasim with Noda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to enable the upsampling of data gathered using these particular spectrometry techniques which provide benefits of being especially well-suited to at least some applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
5/28/2026
Prosecution Insights