DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/22/2026.
2. Claims 7-10 and 16 are canceled.
3. Claims 18-22 have been added.
4. Claims 1-6, 11-15, and 17-22 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
a) In regard to 101 rejection, the Applicant has provided arguments, “… Step 2A, prong 1(No judicial exception is recited). The Office Action characterizes the claim as reciting mental processes and mathematical concepts. That characterization is inconsistent with the amended language of claim 1 ….none of the limitations recites a judicial exception…Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integrated into a practical application) Even assuming arguendo that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, the amended claim clearly integrates any such exception into a practical application…Step 2B (Inventive concept) Even if the claim were considered to recite and not be integrated into a judicial exception at Step 2A, the amended claim recites an inventive concept...”
In response to argument:
a) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
Regarding independent Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations “…events of the at least one chromatographic system including changes to at least one of instrument methods, or manual peak integration; …analyze the chromatography data;… and events of at least one of the data analysis or changes to data analysis methods; and… identify linked events across a group of audit logs comprising the group of events, wherein events stored in one audit log of the group of audit logs are linked with events stored in another audit log of the group of audit logs”, as abstract ideas. The abstract idea of claim 1 can be characterized as processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes.
Beyond the abstract idea, we next look at additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claim limitation “at least one processor configured to execute: first logic to: obtain, using at least one chromatography system, chromatography data; and log a group of events… second logic to: log the group of events…and third logic to: provide an alert on a device associated with a user, wherein the alert provides information about a particular linked event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular linked event” are additional element. However, the claim limitation “at least one processor configured to execute: first logic, second logic, and third logic…”, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of processing and logging data) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. As shown in the prior art, Cohn et al. US 2014/0032694 (hereinafter, Cohn), ([0021], [0027]-[0028]), and Jordan, II et al. US 10282788 (hereinafter, Jordan), (column 3, lines 12-40), both show that “at least one processor configured to execute: first logic, second logic, and third logic…”, are well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Further, the claim limitation “first logic to: obtain, using at least one chromatography system, chromatography data; and log a group of events… second logic to: log the group of events ”, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as data collecting and/or gathering step) and they are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity”. In addition, as shown in the prior art, Cohn, ([0021], [0027]-[0028], Fig. 6), and Jordan, (column 3, lines 1-40), both show that “first logic to: obtain, using at least one chromatography system, chromatography data; and log a group of events… second logic to: log the group of events ”, are well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and/or Performing repetitive calculations).
Furthermore, the claim limitation “third logic to: provide an alert on a device associated with a user, wherein the alert provides information about a particular linked event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular linked event”, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as displaying and/or outputting) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. As shown in the prior art, Cohn, ([0021], [0027]-[0028], Fig. 6), and Jordan, (column 3, lines 13-40), both show that “third logic to: provide an alert on a device associated with a user, wherein the alert provides information about a particular linked event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular linked event”, are well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The combination of elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 11-15, and 17-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground rejection necessitate by applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-6, 11-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The representative claim 1 recites:
A scientific instrument support system, comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute:
first logic to: obtain, using at least one chromatography system, chromatography data; and
log a group of events comprising events of the at least one chromatographic system including changes to at least one of instrument methods, processing methods, or manual peak integration; second logic to: analyze the chromatography data; and log the group of events further comprising events of at least one of the data analysis or changes to data analysis methods; and third logic to: identify linked events in the across a group of audit logs comprising the group of events, wherein events stored in one audit log of the group of audit logs are linked with events stored in another audit log of the group of audit logs by the third logic; and
provide an alert on a device associated with a user, wherein the alert provides information about a particular linked event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular linked event.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: at least one processor configured to execute: first logic to: obtain, using at least one chromatography system, chromatography data; and log a group of events… second logic to: log the group of events…and third logic to: provide an alert on a device associated with a user, wherein the alert provides information about a particular linked event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular linked event.”
The limitation “at least one processor configured to execute:…first logic, second logic and third logic” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Further, the limitation “first logic to: obtain, using at least one chromatography system, chromatography data; and ; second logic” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic chromatography system.
Furthermore, the limitation “provide an alert on a device associated with a user, wherein the alert provides information about a particular linked event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular linked event” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., outputting or displaying information using a computer component) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as gathering, logging, and displaying information using generic computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Cohn et al. US 2014/0032694 (hereinafter, Cohn), ([0021], [0027]-[0028], Fig. 6), and Jordan, II et al. US 10282788 (hereinafter, Jordan), (column 3, lines 12-40). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 11 and 17, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1 as explained above.
Dependent claims 2, 12, and 18, recite addition element of “wherein the first logic prevents the use of a modified instrument method until a user has reviewed and approved the changes to the instrument method”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., user authentication) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Cohn, ([0023]-[0024]), and Jensen et al. US 2022/0196617 ( US Provisional Application US 63/130052), (hereinafter, Jensen) ([0097]-[0100]). Therefore, claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 13, and 19, recite addition element of “wherein the first logic requires the user reviewing and approving the changes to the instrument method to be different from a user that made the changes to the instrument method”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., user authentication) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Cohn, ([0023]-[0024]), and Jensen ([0097]-[0100]). Therefore, claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4, 14, and 20, recite addition element of “wherein the second logic prevents the use of a modified data analysis method until a user has reviewed and approved the changes to the data analysis method”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., user authentication) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Cohn, ([0023]-[0024]), and Jensen ([0097]-[0100]). Therefore, claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5, 15, and 21, recite addition element of “wherein the second logic requires the user reviewing and approving the changes to the data analysis method to be different from a user that made the changes to the data analysis method”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., user authentication) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Cohn, ([0023]-[0024]), and Jensen ([0097]-[0100]). Therefore, claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 6 and 22, recite addition element of “wherein the third logic alerts a user of a linked event”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., outputting or displaying information using a computer component) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Cohn, (Fig. 6), and Jensen ([0035]). Therefore, claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Objection
8. Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 13 and 15 recite “The scientific instrument support system…” should read “ The method for scientific instrument support…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claims 1, 6, 11, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. US 2014/0032694 (hereinafter, Cohn), in view of Wong et al. US 7228304 (hereinafter, Wong), in further view of Jordan, II et al. US 10282788 (hereinafter, Jordan).
11. Regarding claim 1, Cohn discloses a scientific instrument support system, comprising: at least one processor configured to execute:
first logic to: obtain, using at least one chromatography system, chromatography data; and log a group of events comprising events of the at least one chromatographic system including changes to at least one of instrument methods, processing methods, or manual peak integration ([0021], [0034]: the instruments 20a-20n may be scientific instruments such as liquid chromatography systems, supercritical fluid chromatography systems, capillary electrophoresis, gas chromatography systems, mass spectrometers…The acquisition category includes events generated by instruments of the system such as, for example instruments 20a-20n of FIG. 1. For example, acquisition events may include notifications regarding state of the instrument (e.g., when the instrument starts, has a component failure, is low on solvent, and the like). The data management category may include events related generally to data management. For example, methods may be defined in a system which describe parameters for instrument operation and control to acquire data and also for subsequent analysis of the acquired data. To further illustrate, a method may be defined in a system which specifies operating parameters for an LC (e.g., which solvent to use, runtime) and/or MS (e.g., kV setting). Furthermore, a method may identify parameters and information used in further analysis of raw data acquired from an instrument. …For example, a method may identify a calibration curve used in determining a concentration of a substance in an unknown sample (currently be analyzed) by comparing the unknown to a set of standard samples of known concentration. The curve may indicate how an instrumental response changes (e.g. Y axis values) with respect to different known concentrations of an analyte (e.g., X axis values), or more generally a substance, to be measured….From this curve representing the expected behavior/instrument response measurement, an unknown concentration of the analyte in a sample may be determined. For example, the instrument signal/response may be measured for the analyte in the unknown. Using the calibration curve, interpolation may be used to determine the concentration of the unknown. A user of the data system, such as a chemist, may logon and create or define such methods. The action of creating and/or modifying a method may result in an event occurrence in the data management category);
second logic to: analyze the chromatography data; and log group of events further comprising at least one of the data analysis or changes to data analysis methods ([0021], [0034], Fig. 6); and
third logic to: identify linked events in the audit logs ([0037]-[0038], Fig. 6B:
the administrator may select to view the events in the event log sorted based on severity level by selecting 414. In response the right hand side of the display 410 may be updated to display the events sorted from highest (alert) to lowest (information) severity level. Furthermore, the administrator may apply a severity filter so that only those events of one or more selected severity levels are displayed…Those events in the event log having the selected severity level(s) may be displayed in the right hand side 410….The administrator may select to sort the event notifications based on any one or more criteria of 452 including severity, date, category, action, user name, fill name and message. …Subsequently then selecting category of 452 uses the category of each event as third tier sorting criteria so that all information severity messages having a same date are further sorted based on category. .. may allow for one or more such sorting level criteria. Entering information in 454 may specify additional criteria for filtering the events in the event log. For example, a particular month or day may be entered in 454 so that only those events having the information severity level and the particular month or day entered are displayed. In a similar manner, … filtering criteria for any of severity, date, category, action, user name, full name and message. Therefore, a user may sort by the criteria included in 452 and may also specify terms for each of the criteria in 452 which further filter or limit the displayed event notifications); and
providing an alert on a device associated with a comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular event ([0037]-[0038], Fig. 6: the administrator or other privileged user may be allowed to view all events included in the event log. To perform this operation, with reference to FIG. 6, the administrator may select event browser 402 from the left hand side of the displayed menu and a list of all events currently in the event log may be displayed on the right hand side 410).
Cohn does not disclose:
identify linked events across a group of audit logs comprising the group of events, wherein events stored in one audit log of the group of audit logs are linked with events stored in another audit log of the group of audit logs by the third logic; and wherein the alert provides information about a particular linked event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular linked event.
However, Wong discloses:
identify linked events across a group of audit logs comprising the group of events, wherein events stored in one audit log of the group of audit logs are linked with events stored in another audit log of the group of audit logs by the third logic (column 1, lines 50-62, column 2, line 29-column 3, line 35, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cohn to use identify linked events across a group of audit logs comprising the group of events, wherein events stored in one audit log of the group of audit logs are linked with events stored in another audit log of the group of audit logs by the third logic as taught by Wong.
One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the linking events of audit logs methodology of a computerized system as known in the art and as taught by Wong in an event analyzing system of a scientific instruments such as that of Cohn, thereby keeping a group of audit logs and identifying events linked across them by a shared audit identification (Wong, Abstract).
Cohn in view of Wong does not disclose:
wherein the alert provides information about a particular linked event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular linked event.
However, Jordan discloses:
wherein the alert provides information about a particular event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular event (column 2, lines 36-53: (1) receiving, by the hardware controller via a first communication network, an indication that a particular device of the plurality of devices has undergone a repair event; (2) accessing, by one or more processors, an inventory list associated with the property, the inventory list indicating the plurality of devices and including a service log for each of the plurality of devices, wherein the service log indicates at least one of a set of past repair events and/or a set of future scheduled repair events for the respective device of the plurality of devices; (3) based upon the indication, updating, by the one or more processors, the service log associated with the particular device to indicate that the particular device has undergone the repair event; (4) generating, by the one or more processors, a notification including a description of the repair event; and/or (5) transmitting, to a customer associated with the insurance policy via a second communication network, the notification to facilitate customer awareness of the repair event….[Further], column 8, lines 47-55: aggregate service logs across many properties to determine common factors between devices that fail to be repaired properly and/or tend to need repaired at a disproportionate frequency. This aggregated
data may enable the general contractor to determine, for example, whether a particular team of contractors and/or brand of devices are more frequently associated with failed
repairs, and, as a result, adjust their deployment, training, and/or supply chain strategies accordingly. Also, see column 9, lines 13-38). Cohn discloses providing an alert on a device associated with a comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular event as disclosed above. Wong discloses identify particular linked events across a group of audit logs as disclosed above. Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan does not explicitly disclose provide an alert on a device about linked events. However, providing an alert on a device about linked events would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cohn in view of Wong to use wherein the alert provides information about a particular linked event associated with a maintenance event, and wherein providing the alert comprises presenting a user interface on the device for viewing the particular linked event as taught by Jordan. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide a notification message to a user regarding a maintenance event (Jordan, Abstract).
12. Regarding claims 11 and 17, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
13. Regarding claim 6, Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan disclose the scientific instrument support system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Cohn further discloses wherein the third logic alerts a user of [an] event ([0030], [0038]-[0039]). Further, Wong discloses linked events (column 1, lines 50-62, column 2, line 29-column 3, line 35). Jordan (column 2, lines 36-53).
14. Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
15. Claims 2-5, 12-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan, in further view of Jensen et al. US 2022/0196617 ( US Provisional Application US 63/130052), (hereinafter, Jensen).
16. Regarding claim 2, Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan disclose the scientific instrument support system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Cohn further discloses the use of a modified instrument method and reviewed the changes to the instrument method ([0020], [0023], [0034]: setting and operation of the instruments 20a-20n and servers 40, 42, software applications and data files stored on the data server, administration and security of the accounts user to control logon access to a data system of the data server, and the like… A user may access instruments 20-20n or data such as may be stored on the data server 40 by logging onto the data system using one of the clients 30a, 30b. The data server 40 may include software of the data system for controlling access to the system using authentication techniques known in the art such as user account and passwords with one or more roles associated with the user accounts. As a security measure, roles may define types of data access and operations which an associated user is allowed to perform… For example, an event may be logged when an instrument's parameters are set or modified by a user of the data system, when the instrument controlled by the data system is used to perform data analysis, regarding the results of the analysis, when an instrument integrated with the data system (or component of such an instrument) fails, each time a user logs in/out of the data system. See also [0024], [0029]).
Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan does not disclose:
prevents the use of a modified instrument method until a user has reviewed and approved.
However, Jensen discloses:
prevents the use of a modified instrument method until a user has reviewed and approved ([0030], [0097]-[0100], Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan to use prevents the use of a modified instrument method until a user has reviewed and approved as taught by Jensen. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to enhance the security of the scientific instrument system (Jensen, [0030]).
17. Regarding claims 12 and 18, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2.
18. Regarding claim 3, Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan disclose the scientific instrument support system of claim 2, as disclosed above.
Cohn further discloses wherein the first logic requires the user reviewing the changes to the instrument method to be a user that made the changes to the instrument method ([0020], [0023], [0034]: setting and operation of the instruments 20a-20n and servers 40, 42, software applications and data files stored on the data server, administration and security of the accounts user to control logon access to a data system of the data server, and the like… A user may access instruments 20-20n or data such as may be stored on the data server 40 by logging onto the data system using one of the clients 30a, 30b. The data server 40 may include software of the data system for controlling access to the system using authentication techniques known in the art such as user account and passwords with one or more roles associated with the user accounts. As a security measure, roles may define types of data access and operations which an associated user is allowed to perform… For example, an event may be logged when an instrument's parameters are set or modified by a user of the data system, when the instrument controlled by the data system is used to perform data analysis, regarding the results of the analysis, when an instrument integrated with the data system (or component of such an instrument) fails, each time a user logs in/out of the data system. See also [0024], [0029]).
Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan does not disclose:
wherein the first logic requires the user approving the changes to the instrument method to be different from a user that made the changes to the instrument method.
However, Jensen discloses:
wherein the first logic requires the user approving the changes to the instrument method to be different from a user that made the changes to the instrument method ([0030], [0097]-[0100], Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan to use wherein the first logic requires the user approving the changes to the instrument method to be different from a user that made the changes to the instrument method as taught by Jensen. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to enhance the security of the scientific instrument system (Jensen, [0030]).
19. Regarding claims 13 and 19, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
20. Regarding claim 4, Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan disclose the scientific instrument support system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Cohn further discloses wherein the second logic use of a modified data analysis method and reviewed the changes to the data analysis method ([0020], [0023], [0034]: setting and operation of the instruments 20a-20n and servers 40, 42, software applications and data files stored on the data server, administration and security of the accounts user to control logon access to a data system of the data server, and the like… A user may access instruments 20-20n or data such as may be stored on the data server 40 by logging onto the data system using one of the clients 30a, 30b. The data server 40 may include software of the data system for controlling access to the system using authentication techniques known in the art such as user account and passwords with one or more roles associated with the user accounts. As a security measure, roles may define types of data access and operations which an associated user is allowed to perform… For example, an event may be logged when an instrument's parameters are set or modified by a user of the data system, when the instrument controlled by the data system is used to perform data analysis, regarding the results of the analysis, when an instrument integrated with the data system (or component of such an instrument) fails, each time a user logs in/out of the data system. See also [0024], [0029]).
Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan does not disclose:
wherein the second logic prevents the use of a modified data analysis method until a user has reviewed and approved.
However, Jensen discloses:
wherein the second logic prevents the use of a modified data analysis method until a user has reviewed and approved ([0030], [0097]-[0100], Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan to use wherein the second logic prevents the use of a modified data analysis method until a user has reviewed and approved as taught by Jensen. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to enhance the security of the scientific instrument system (Jensen, [0030]).
21. Regarding claims 14 and 20, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 4.
22. Regarding claim 5, Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan disclose the scientific instrument support system of claim 4, as disclosed above.
Cohn further discloses wherein the second logic requires the user reviewing the changes to the data analysis method to be a user that made the changes to the data analysis method ([0020], [0023], [0034]: setting and operation of the instruments 20a-20n and servers 40, 42, software applications and data files stored on the data server, administration and security of the accounts user to control logon access to a data system of the data server, and the like… A user may access instruments 20-20n or data such as may be stored on the data server 40 by logging onto the data system using one of the clients 30a, 30b. The data server 40 may include software of the data system for controlling access to the system using authentication techniques known in the art such as user account and passwords with one or more roles associated with the user accounts. As a security measure, roles may define types of data access and operations which an associated user is allowed to perform… For example, an event may be logged when an instrument's parameters are set or modified by a user of the data system, when the instrument controlled by the data system is used to perform data analysis, regarding the results of the analysis, when an instrument integrated with the data system (or component of such an instrument) fails, each time a user logs in/out of the data system. See also [0024], [0029]).
Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan does not disclose:
wherein the second logic requires the user approving the changes to the data analysis method to be different from a user that made the changes to the data analysis method.
However, Jensen discloses:
wherein the second logic requires the user approving the changes to the data analysis method to be different from a user that made the changes to the data analysis method ([0030], [0097]-[0100], Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cohn in view of Wong in view of Jordan to use wherein the second logic requires the user approving the changes to the data analysis method to be different from a user that made the changes to the data analysis method as taught by Jensen. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to enhance the security of the scientific instrument system (Jensen, [0030]).
23. Regarding claims 15 and 21, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 5.
Conclusion
24. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
25. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
