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 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-11 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. ( Step 1: YES ). The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 7 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1. Claim 7 recites the limitations of obtaining one or more chromatographic data sets, each chromatographic data set representing an injection of a sample and separation of the sample by chromatographic methods; performing a first analysis of the one or more chromatographic data sets using a first set of algorithms and a first set of analysis parameters to generate a first result; performing a second analysis of the one or more chromatographic data sets using a second set of algorithms and a second set of analysis parameters to generate a second result; identifying differences between the first result and the second result; and providing a user interface configured to: indicate the data sets where the second result differs from the first result; and display one or more chromatograms representative of the indicated data sets and visually identifying features on the chromatograms where the differences occur. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mathematical concepts . Analyzing one or more chromatographic data sets using first and second algorithms recites a mathematical relationships/calculations . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mathematical relationships/ calculations , then it falls within the “ Mathematical Concepts ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The re are no hardware components recited in Claims 1 or 7. The first and second analysis using first and second sets of algorithms and user interface in Clai ms 1 and 7 appears to be just software. Claim 1 is also abstract for similar reasons. ( Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite first and second analysis using first and second sets of algorithms and user interface in Claims 1 and 7 . The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality ( i.e. , as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. ( Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application ) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [ 0050-0055 ] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 7 are not patent eligible. (St ep 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more ) Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-11 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 7 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The common computing device, remote computing device, user computing device, scientific instrument , and chromatographic system recited in claims 2- 5 and 8 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Claims 6 and 10 further includes details as to how the results of the analysis are displayed without adding significantly more. Claim 9 further defines where the data sets are retrieved from without adding significantly more. Claim 11 sets forth a non-transitory computer readable medium that performs the steps of method claim 7 without adding significantly more. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-6 and 8-11 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-11 are not patent-eligible. With respect to claims 1-6, data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760. Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized. In the instant claims, the claims are drawn to a system, yet there is no structure actually defining what the system encompasses, and therefore the claims are considered to be non-statutory. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. Claim(s) 1 , 2, 4 - 11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub . 2017/0322190 ( Nyholm et al. ‘190) . Re Claim 1: Nyholm et al. ‘190 disclose scientific instrument support apparatus, comprising: a first logic (350) to obtain one or more chromatographic data sets from a chromatographic system, each chromatographic data set representing an injection of a sample and separation of the sample by chromatographic methods (paragraph [0076]) ; a second logic (360) to: perform a first analysis of the one or more chromatographic data sets using a first set of algorithms and a first set of analysis parameters to generate a first result (paragraph [0074]; Figure 12) ; and perform a second analysis of the one or more chromatographic data sets using a second set of algorithms and a second set of analysis parameters to generate a second result (paragraph [0074]; Figure 12) ; and a third logic (360) to: identify differences between the first result and the second result; and provide a user interface (370) configured to: indicate the data sets where the second result differs from the first result (paragraph [0075]; Figures 12 & 14) ; and display one or more chromatograms representative of the indicated data sets and visually identifying features on the chromatograms where the differences occur (paragraph [0075]; Figures 12 & 14) . Re Claim 2: Nyholm et al. ‘190 disclose the system substantially as claimed, in supra, including, that the first logic, the second logic, and the third logic are implemented by a common computing device (paragraph [0077]) . Re Claim 4 : Nyholm et al. ‘190 disclose the system substantially as claimed, in supra, including, that at least one of the first logic, the second logic, and the third logic are implemented by a user computing device (paragraph [0077]) . Re Claim 5 : Nyholm et al. ‘190 disclose the system substantially as claimed, in supra, including, that at least one of the first logic, the second logic, and the third logic are implemented in the scientific instrument (paragraph [0077]) . Re Claim 6 : Nyholm et al. ‘190 disclose the system substantially as claimed, in supra, including, that the user interface is further configured to display a first numeric result of the first analysis and a second numeric result of the second analysis in a single window and visually identify the differences (Figure 6D) . Re Claim 7: Method claim 7 is substantially similar to previously rejected system claim 1 and is therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale. Re Claim 8 : Nyholm et al. ‘190 disclose the m ethod substantially as claimed, in supra, including, that obtaining one or more chromatographic data sets includes instructing a chromatographic system to perform an analysis of one or more samples (abstract) . Re Claim 9 : Nyholm et al. ‘190 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including, that obtaining one or more chromatographic data sets includes retrieving the one or more chromatographic data sets from a data storage (abstract; paragraph [0077]) . Re Claim 10 : Nyholm et al. ‘190 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including, that the user interface is further configured to display a first numeric result of the first analysis and a second numeric result of the second analysis in a single window and visually identify the differences (Figure 6D) . Re Claim 11 : Non-transitory computer readable medium claim 11 is substantially similar to previously rejected s ystem claim 1 and is therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyholm et al. ‘190 as applied to claim s 1, 2, 4-11 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub . 2011/0144923 (Gallagher ‘923) . Re Claim 3: Nyholm et al. ‘190 disclose the system substantially as claimed, in supra, with the exception of including, that at least one of the first logic, the second logic, and the third logic are implemented by a computing device remote from the scientific instrument. Gallagher ‘923 disclose a computer system that can be at a remote site for analysis and receive the chromatographic data through a network (paragraph [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the system of Nyholm et al. ‘190, in view of the teachings of Gallagher ‘923 , to include the use of a remote computing device for the basic reason of combining known systems to yield the predictable result of being able to be flexible and analyze the data when/where needed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References B-E on PTO-892 have been included as being relevant to the field of invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6039 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anita Coupe can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3614 . 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. Lindsay Maguire 3/9/26 /LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619