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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14 are still pending
Claims 1, 4 and 11-14 have been amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-14 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues the steps performed by the noise estimator and calculator cannot be performed by the human mind (Remarks pg. 8-10). However, according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), these steps fall under the abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes”. Furthermore, applicant argues the noise variation estimation as a highly specific machine bound operation. However, a human can still 1) record raw data before and after filtering, 2) create a frequency histogram 3) compare noise levels, 4) look for consistent reduction and 5) note any effects that could indicate filter artifacts. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is still reciting an abstract idea. Applicant further argues the human mind cannot reconstruct an unfiltered state of the measurement data (remarks pg. 10); however, a human can still apply an inverse transform or model on such data to reconstruct its unfiltered state. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is still reciting an abstract idea. Applicant further argues the claim is integrated into a practical application, thus being significantly more than the abstract idea with emphasis on the acquire, noise intensity estimator and calculator (remarks pg. 10-13). However, when viewed as a whole, these elements are seen as generic computer elements used to perform mental steps. Moreover, applicant highlights the specific operations (which are abstract) performed by these elements, however according to MPEP 2106.05 these cannot be seen as providing an inventive concept. There is nothing particular about the acquirer, noise intensity estimator and calculator; thus, as a whole the claim is still viewed as a general-purpose computer that applies an abstract idea. Applicant further argues claims 4 and claim 11-14 reflect specific improvement in the reliability of analysis results, however they still present the same 101 issues mentioned in claim 1. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being integrated into a practical application and offering significantly more are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a measurement data analysis device that analyzes measurement data of a sample obtained in an analyzer, comprising: a noise variation estimator that estimates a noise variation coefficient, the noise variation coefficient being applied to a noise included in the measurement data by a frequency filter included in the analyzer; an acquirer that acquires the measurement data to which the frequency filter has been applied in the analyzer; and a calculator that estimates, with use of the noise variation coefficient, a noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, and analyzes, based on the estimated noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, the measurement data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a device; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of a noise variation estimator that estimates a noise variation coefficient, the noise variation coefficient being applied to a noise included in the measurement data by a frequency filter included in the analyzer. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating a noise variation coefficient can be done by a human with pen and paper, through visual inspection of data plots, identifying homogeneous regions in images or use auditory/visual perception to assess noise quality. For example, one can still 1) record raw data before and after filtering, 2) create a frequency histogram 3) compare noise levels, 4) look for consistent reduction and 5) note any effects that could indicate filter artifacts.
The claim recites the limitation of a calculator that estimates, with use of the noise variation coefficient, a noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, and analyzes, based on the estimated noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, the measurement data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating a noise intensity and analyzing measurement data can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a noise variation estimator, an acquirer, a calculator
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to estimate a noise intensity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea because they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting: an acquirer that acquires the measurement data to which the frequency filter has been applied in the analyzer
US 20160238575 A1 (KOZAWA, Hiroaki) teaches the conventionality of the limitation, an acquirer (acquiring units 42 and 43) that acquires the measurement data (par.54 teaches detection signals as measurement data) to which the frequency filter (par.54 and fig.3 teaches a frequency filter) has been applied in the analyzer (fig.3 #24, #25, #26 and #27 constitute an analyzer)
US 20100283785 A1 (Satulovsky; Javier E.); teaches the conventionality of the limitation, an acquirer (par.24 teaches peak detector 330 as acquirer) that acquires the measurement data to which the frequency filter (par.21 teaches signal generator 310 as a sample separator, which inherently teaches/acts as a frequency filter) has been applied in the analyzer (par.21 “The system 300 may be an LC/MS system, for example, which collects, measures, processes and/or analyzes various samples for identification and generates two-dimensional representations based on three-dimensional data sets.”)
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “…, wherein
the calculator includes a modeler that retrieves a model function stored in a storage device, models the measurement data using the model function and provides the measurement data obtained in the analyzer to the model function to estimate a parameter of the model function, and
the modeler, based on the estimated noise variation coefficient, sets a parameter that adjusts influence of a likelihood.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… the noise variation estimator estimates the noise variation coefficient by applying a filter, which is simulated based on a set value of the frequency filter set in the analyzer, to a noise generated by a normal random number.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites a measurement data analysis device that analyzes measurement data of a sample having arrays of two or more dimensions obtained in an analyzer, comprising:
a noise intensity estimator that estimates a relative noise intensity, which is an intensity indicating non-uniformity of a noise caused by device characteristics of the analyzer, for each one-dimensional element of the measurement data;
an acquirer that acquires the measurement data from the analyzer; and
a calculator that corrects, with use of the relative noise intensity, a noise intensity included in the measurement data, and analyzes, based on the corrected noise intensity, the measurement data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a device; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of a noise intensity estimator that estimates a relative noise intensity, which is an intensity indicating non-uniformity of a noise caused by device characteristics of the analyzer, for each one-dimensional element of the measurement data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating a noise variation coefficient can be done by a human with pen and paper. For example, one can still 1) record raw data before and after filtering, 2) create a frequency histogram 3) compare noise levels, 4) look for consistent reduction and 5) note any effects that could indicate filter artifacts.
The claim recites the limitation of a calculator that corrects, with use of the relative noise intensity, a noise intensity included in the measurement data, and analyzes, based on the corrected noise intensity, the measurement data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, correcting a noise intensity (through the use of models) and analyzing measurement data can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a noise intensity estimator, an acquirer, a calculator; an analyzer
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of correcting a noise intensity in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to correct a noise intensity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea because they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting: an acquirer that acquires the measurement data from the analyzer
US 20160238575 A1 (KOZAWA, Hiroaki) teaches the conventionality of the limitation, an acquirer that acquires (acquiring units 42 and 43) the measurement data (par.54 teaches detection signals as measurement data) from the analyzer (fig.3 #24, #25, #26 and #27 constitute an analyzer)
US 20100283785 A1 (Satulovsky; Javier E.); teaches the conventionality of the limitation, an acquirer (par.24 teaches peak detector 330 as acquirer) that acquires the measurement data (par.21 teaches measurement data) from the analyzer (par.21 “The system 300 may be an LC/MS system, for example, which collects, measures, processes and/or analyzes various samples for identification and generates two-dimensional representations based on three-dimensional data sets.”)
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of correcting a noise intensity in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the measurement data has two-dimensional arrays in a retention time direction and a wavelength direction.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the noise intensity estimator calculates a statistic in regard to the retention time direction of the measurement data, and estimates, based on the statistic, the relative noise intensity for each wavelength.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the noise intensity estimator estimates the relative noise intensity for each wavelength by performing a high-order derivative in regard to the retention time direction of the measurement data.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the noise intensity estimator estimates the relative noise intensity also in regard a region not subject to an analysis by the calculator in the measurement data.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… the calculator corrects the noise intensity with respect to the matrix-decomposed measurement data.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, which depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the calculator matrix-decomposes the measurement data using singular value decomposition.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a measurement data analysis method of analyzing measurement data of a sample obtained in an analyzer, including:
estimating a noise variation coefficient, the noise variation coefficient being applied to a noise included in the measurement data by a frequency filter included in the analyzer;
acquiring the measurement data to which the frequency filter has been applied in the analyzer; and
estimating, with use of the noise variation coefficient, a noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, and analyzes, based on the estimated noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, the measurement data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of estimating a noise variation coefficient, the noise variation coefficient being applied to a noise included in the measurement data by a frequency filter included in the analyzer. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating a noise variation coefficient can be done by a human with pen and paper. for example, estimating a noise variation coefficient can be done by a human with pen and paper. For example, one can still 1) record raw data before and after filtering, 2) create a frequency histogram 3) compare noise levels, 4) look for consistent reduction and 5) note any effects that could indicate filter artifacts.
The claim recites the limitation of estimating, with use of the noise variation coefficient, a noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, and analyzes, based on the estimated noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, the measurement data.This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating a noise intensity and analyzing measurement data can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: an analyzer; frequency filter
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to estimate a noise intensity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea because they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting: acquiring the measurement data to which the frequency filter has been applied in the analyzer
US 20160238575 A1 (KOZAWA, Hiroaki) teaches the conventionality of the limitation, acquiring (acquiring units 42 and 43) the measurement data (par.54 teaches detection signals as measurement data) to which the frequency filter (par.54 and fig.3 teaches a frequency filter) has been applied in the analyzer (fig.3 #24, #25, #26 and #27 constitute an analyzer)
US 20100283785 A1 (Satulovsky; Javier E.); teaches the conventionality of the limitation, acquiring (par.24 teaches peak detector 330 as acquirer) the measurement data (par.21 teaches measurement data) to which the frequency filter (par.21 teaches signal generator 310 as a sample separator, which inherently teaches/acts as a frequency filter) has been applied in the analyzer (par.21 “The system 300 may be an LC/MS system, for example, which collects, measures, processes and/or analyzes various samples for identification and generates two-dimensional representations based on three-dimensional data sets.”)
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites a measurement data analysis method of analyzing measurement data of a sample having arrays of two or more dimensions obtained in an analyzer, comprising:
estimating a relative noise intensity, which is an intensity indicating non- uniformity of a noise caused by device characteristics of the analyzer, for each one- dimensional element of the measurement data;
acquiring the measurement data from the analyzer; and
correcting, with use of the relative noise intensity, a noise intensity included in the measurement data, and analyzes, based on the corrected noise intensity included in the measurement data, the measurement data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of estimating a relative noise intensity, which is an intensity indicating non-uniformity of a noise caused by device characteristics of the analyzer, for each one-dimensional element of the measurement data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating a noise variation intensity can be done by a human with pen and paper. For example, one can still 1) record raw data before and after filtering, 2) create a frequency histogram 3) compare noise levels, 4) look for consistent reduction and 5) note any effects that could indicate filter artifacts.
The claim recites the limitation of correcting, with use of the relative noise intensity, a noise intensity included in the measurement data, and analyzes, based on the estimated noise intensity included in the measurement data, the measurement data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, correcting a noise intensity and analyzing measurement data can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: an analyzer; frequency filter
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to estimate a noise intensity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea because they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting: acquiring the measurement data from the analyzer
US 20160238575 A1 (KOZAWA, Hiroaki) teaches the conventionality of the limitation, acquiring (acquiring units 42 and 43) the measurement data (par.54 teaches detection signals as measurement data) from the analyzer (fig.3 #24, #25, #26 and #27 constitute an analyzer)
US 20100283785 A1 (Satulovsky; Javier E.); teaches the conventionality of the limitation, acquiring (par.24 teaches peak detector 330 as acquirer) the measurement data (par.21 teaches measurement data) from the analyzer (par.21 “The system 300 may be an LC/MS system, for example, which collects, measures, processes and/or analyzes various samples for identification and generates two-dimensional representations based on three-dimensional data sets.”)
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for analyzing measurement data of a sample obtained in an analyzer, the program causing a computer to execute the processes of:
estimating a noise variation coefficient, the noise variation coefficient being applied to a noise included in the measurement data by a frequency filter included in the analyzer;
acquiring the measurement data to which the frequency filter has been applied in the analyzer; and
estimating, with use of the noise variation coefficient, a noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, and analyzing, based on the estimated noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, the measurement data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a program; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of estimating a noise variation coefficient, the noise variation coefficient being applied to a noise included in the measurement data by a frequency filter included in the analyzer. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating a noise variation coefficient can be done by a human with pen and paper. For example, one can still 1) record raw data before and after filtering, 2) create a frequency histogram 3) compare noise levels, 4) look for consistent reduction and 5) note any effects that could indicate filter artifacts.
The claim recites the limitation of estimating, with use of the noise variation coefficient, a noise intensity included in the measurement data obtained before the frequency filter is applied, and analyzes, based on the estimated noise intensity, the measurement data.This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating a noise intensity and analyzing measurement data can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program; an analyzer; frequency filter
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to estimate a noise intensity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea because they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting: acquiring the measurement data to which the frequency filter has been applied in the analyzer
US 20160238575 A1 (KOZAWA, Hiroaki) teaches the conventionality of the limitation, acquiring (acquiring units 42 and 43) the measurement data (par.54 teaches detection signals as measurement data) to which the frequency filter (par.54 and fig.3 teaches a frequency filter) has been applied in the analyzer (fig.3 #24, #25, #26 and #27 constitute an analyzer)
US 20100283785 A1 (Satulovsky; Javier E.); teaches the conventionality of the limitation, acquiring (par.24 teaches peak detector 330 as acquirer) the measurement data (par.21 teaches measurement data) to which the frequency filter (par.21 teaches signal generator 310 as a sample separator, which inherently teaches/acts as a frequency filter) has been applied in the analyzer (par.21 “The system 300 may be an LC/MS system, for example, which collects, measures, processes and/or analyzes various samples for identification and generates two-dimensional representations based on three-dimensional data sets.”)
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for analyzing measurement data of a sample obtained in an analyzer, the program causing a computer to execute the processes of:
estimating a relative noise intensity, which is an intensity indicating non- uniformity of a noise caused by device characteristics of the analyzer, for each one- dimensional element of the measurement data;
acquiring the measurement data from the analyzer; and
correcting with use of the relative noise intensity, a noise intensity included in the measurement data, and analyzes, based on the corrected noise intensity included in the measurement data, the measurement data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a program; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of estimating a relative noise intensity, which is an intensity indicating non-uniformity of a noise caused by device characteristics of the analyzer, for each one-dimensional element of the measurement data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating a noise variation intensity can be done by a human with pen and paper. For example, one can still 1) record raw data before and after filtering, 2) create a frequency histogram 3) compare noise levels, 4) look for consistent reduction and 5) note any effects that could indicate filter artifacts.
The claim recites the limitation of correcting, with use of the relative noise intensity, a noise intensity included in the measurement data, and analyzes, based on the corrected noise intensity included in the measurement data noise intensity, the measurement data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, correcting a noise intensity and analyzing measurement data can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program; an analyzer; frequency filter
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to estimate a noise intensity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea because they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting: acquiring the measurement data from the analyzer
US 20160238575 A1 (KOZAWA, Hiroaki) teaches the conventionality of the limitation, acquiring (acquiring units 42 and 43) the measurement data (par.54 teaches detection signals as measurement data) from the analyzer (fig.3 #24, #25, #26 and #27 constitute an analyzer)
US 20100283785 A1 (Satulovsky; Javier E.); teaches the conventionality of the limitation, acquiring (par.24 teaches peak detector 330 as acquirer) the measurement data (par.21 teaches measurement data) from the analyzer (par.21 “The system 300 may be an LC/MS system, for example, which collects, measures, processes and/or analyzes various samples for identification and generates two-dimensional representations based on three-dimensional data sets.”)
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating a noise intensity in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 6081768 A; Hu; Yi et al. is a Digital peak detector.
US 5121443 A; Tomlinson; Barrett L. is a Neural net system for analyzing chromatographic peaks.
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 CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights