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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 21 and 22 are Objected claim.
Claims 1-18 and 25 are rejected under 101 Rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 18-20, 23-25 are provisionally rejected under double patenting.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d
1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 18-20, 23-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (Claims in combination: 1, 2, 3), 2, 6-17, 19, and 20, (claims in combination: 1, 2, 3 and 21), and 22-24 of copending Application No. 18/567,195.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims in the current application are encompassed in the previous application. The latter pending application encompasses the same system as the pending application and is arrange in different manner using different wording. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as addressed below.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (Vol. 84 No. 4, Jan 7, 2019 pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent ineligible.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
Under Step 1, Claims 1-20 are statutory.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 all include abstract ideas as highlighted (using a bold font) shown below.
“1.A method of processing an image-charge/current signal representative of one or more ions undergoing oscillatory motion within an ion analyser apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining a recording of the image-charge/current signal generated by the ion analyser apparatus in the time domain;
by a signal processing unit:
applying a transform of the recorded signal to provide a frequency-domain signal; selecting N (where N is an integer >1) separate values (OPn where n = 1 to N; N >= M) of the frequency-domain signal each from amongst a plurality of separate adjacent signal peaks of the frequency-domain signal which include a signal peak corresponding to a target ion; and,
solving a system of equations:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where anm are coefficients and (TPm) are corrected values of M of the selected N separate values of the frequency-domain signal;
selecting the corrected value (TPm) from amongst the M corrected values of the frequency-domain signal corresponding to a signal peak (e.g. a harmonic peak) associated with the target ion; ‘
calculating a value representative of the charge of said target ion undergoing oscillatory motion within the ion analyser apparatus based on the selected corrected value (TPm)”.
The highlighted steps are consider to be an abstract idea, because they are analogous to the abstract ideas identified in Court decisions as pertaining to mental process concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation and opinion) or to mathematical concepts, more particularly mathematical calculations.
Under step 2A prong 2,
The claim 1 do not comprise any significant additional elements/steps.
The steps of “obtaining a recording of the image-charge/current signal generated by the ion analyser apparatus in the time domain” just obtain data, which is insignificant extra solution activity.
Under step 2B
The steps of “obtaining a recording of the image-charge/current signal generated by the ion analyser apparatus in the time domain” just obtain data, which is insignificant extra solution activity.
The depended claims 2, 8, 11- 13, and 16, just additionally describes details of data.
The depended claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are merely extend the details of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, more particularly mathematical calculations or mental steps as accrued.
Claims 5, 6 and 9, further describes the truncated signal and frequency which is insignificant additional steps.
Claim 17 just additionally obtaining data, which is insignificant additional steps.
Claim 19 comprising the specific devices: cyclotrons resonance trap, ELIT, EIBT, CDMS, POFA and PEIT, which is significant additional devices.
Claim 25 comprising the mass spectrometry apparatus, which is significant additional element.
The claim 19 is patent eligible under 101 Rejection.
Also, claims 20-24 are patent eligible under 101 rejection. Under Step 2B, the claim 20 comprise the “ion analysis chamber”, which is specific device, which is significant additional element. These claim 20 are deemed patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 21-24 are dependent claims of claim 20 and are directed to the practical application of the parent claim and are also patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are drawn to “a computer-readable medium". The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
The Examiner suggests that Applicant amends the claims as follows: "non-transitory computer-readable medium".
Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Regarding Claim 1, Kafader Jared O et al., “STORI Plots Enable Accurate Tracking of Individual Ion Signals” Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, Elsevier Science INC, US vol. 30, No 11 disclose a method of processing an image-charge/current signal representative of one or more ions undergoing oscillatory motion within an ion analyser apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining a recording of the image-charge/current signal generated by the ion analyser apparatus in the time domain (Page 2201, equation 9a), the signal S(tn));
by a signal processing unit:
applying a transform of the recorded signal to provide a frequency-domain signal (Page 2202, right column, lines 8-12);
selecting N (where N is an integer >1) separate values (OPn where n = 1 to N; N >= M) of the frequency-domain signal each from amongst a plurality of separate adjacent signal peaks of the frequency-domain signal which include a signal peak corresponding to a target ion (page 2201, right column, lines 8-12).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of processing an image-charge/current signal having the steps of:
“solving a system of equations:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where anm are coefficients and (TPm) are corrected values of M of the selected N separate values of the frequency-domain signal; selecting the corrected value (TPm) from amongst the M corrected values of the frequency-domain signal corresponding to a signal peak (e.g. a harmonic peak) associated with the target ion; calculating a value representative of the charge of said target ion undergoing oscillatory motion within the ion analyser apparatus based on the selected corrected value (TPm)”.
Claims 2-19 and 25 are not rejected under 102/103 rejection as being dependent from an allowed base claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Lange (US Pub.20110240841A1) disclose:
an ion analyser apparatus (Fig. 1A) configured for generating an image-charge/current signal representative of oscillatory motion of one or more ions received(para [003]) therein, the apparatus comprising:
an ion analysis chamber configured for receiving said one or more ions and for generating said image charge/current signal(para [0047] ) in response to said oscillatory motion (Fig. 1A, para [003], [0149]);
Kafader Jared O et al., “STORI Plots Enable Accurate Tracking of Individual Ion Signals” Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, Elsevier Science INC, US vol. 30, disclose a signal recording unit configured for recording the image charge/current signal as a recorded signal in the time domain(Page 2201, equation 9a), the signal S(tn));
a signal processing unit for processing the recorded signal to:
apply a transform of the recorded signal to provide a frequency-domain signal(Page 2202, right column, lines 8-12);
select N (where N is an integer >1) separate values (OP, where n = 1 to N; N Z M) of the frequency-domain signal each from amongst a plurality of separate adjacent signal peaks of the frequency-domain signal which include a signal peak corresponding to a target ion(page 2201, right column, lines 8-12).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest an analyser apparatus for generating said image charge/current signal having the steps of:
solving a system of equations:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where anm are coefficients and TPm are corrected values of M of the selected N separate values of the frequency-domain signal; select the corrected value (TPm) from amongst the M corrected values of the frequency- domain signal corresponding to a signal peak (e.g. a harmonic peak) associated with the target on;
calculate a value representative of the charge of said target ion undergoing oscillatory notion within the ion analyser apparatus based on the selected corrected value, (TPm)”.
Claims 21-24 are not rejected under 102/103 rejection as being dependent from an allowed base claim 20.
Objection
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and file the Terminal disclaimer to overcome Double patent rejection of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857