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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group 1, 2, and 3 share a technical feature that distinguishes over Lemoine reference. Applicant argues that Group 1, 2, and 3 recite the processor adjusts at least one parameter of the separation device when at least one sentinel transition of a first group of two or more contiguous groups of MRM transitions is detected by the tandem mass spectrometer and at least one parameter of the separation device is adjusted to a value identified by the at least one sentinel transition for the next group of the two or more contiguous groups of MRM transitions which is not disclosed in Lemoine.
This is not found persuasive because Lemoine discloses that
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method for triggering a groups of multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions and a computer program product to perform a method for triggering a group of multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/20/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 mentions the limitation “the mixture”, however, for consistency it should recite “the sample mixture”.
Claim 6 recites “an LC gradient time of the separation”, however, it should recite “a LC gradient time of the separation.”
Claim 7 mentions the limitation “the mixture”, however, for consistency it should recite “the sample mixture”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation (1)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "separation device" in claim 1.
The specification defines the ‘separation device’ to include liquid chromatography (Specification, para 0020).
Under the 3-prong analysis, the limitation will be interpreted under 112(f) for the following reasons:
The claim limitation uses the term ‘device’ which is a generic place holder for the
term ‘means’.
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language. The functional language is ‘that separates one or more known compounds from a sample mixture and allows processor-controlled adjustment of at least one parameter of the separation device during the separation’.
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. See MPEP §2181(I). The term "device" is not
modified by sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Interpretation (2)
Without “configured to” or “programmed to” language between the processor and the claimed operation, the limitation “receives two or more contiguous groups of MRM transitions for monitoring the one or more known compounds, wherein each group of the two or more contiguous groups is monitored separately during the plurality of cycles and includes at least one sentinel transition that identifies a next group of the two or more contiguous groups that is to be monitored and identifies a value for the at least one parameter for the next group, places a first group of the two or more contiguous groups on the list of the tandem mass spectrometer, and when at least one sentinel transition of the first group is detected by the tandem mass spectrometer, places a next group of the two or more contiguous groups identified by the at least one sentinel transition on the list and adjusts the at least one parameter of the separation device to a value identified by the at least one sentinel transition for the next group” in claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the processor. See MPEP 2114(IV).
Without “configured to” or “programmed to” language between the processor and the claimed operation, the limitation “wherein the next group includes a transition for the at least one known compound of the mixture and a transition for the isotopically labeled version of the at least one known compound and wherein the value identified by the at least one sentinel transition for the LC gradient time of the separation is based on a predetermined probability that the mixture includes an interference with the at least one known compound” in claim 7 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the processor. See MPEP 2114(IV).
Without “configured to” or “programmed to” language between the processor and the claimed operation, the limitation “wherein if the predetermined probability is high, the value increases the LC gradient time” in claim 8 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the processor. See MPEP 2114(IV).
Without “configured to” or “programmed to” language between the processor and the claimed operation, the limitation “wherein if the predetermined probability is low, the value decreases the LC gradient time” in claim 9 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the processor. See MPEP 2114(IV).
Without “configured to” or “programmed to” language between the processor and the claimed operation, the limitation(s) “adjusts the LC gradient time by adjusting a proportional valve between solvents” in claim 10 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the processor. See MPEP 2114(IV).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111). The current claim limitation(s) do/does not require the controller actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art controller need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
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 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 Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10566178 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the system for triggering a group multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions of the patented invention and the claimed invention require similar components and accomplish identical results.
Claim 1 recites all the components of claim 1 of the patented invention.
Claim 1 recites a “separation device” that allows for processor-controlled adjustment of at least one parament of the separation device during separation, however, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the “separative device” of the patented invention is capable of allow processor-controlled adjustment for separation parameter as to make the system more efficient.
Claim 1 recites an “ion source” and “tandem mass spectrometer” which are recited in the patented invention as well.
Claim 1 further recites a “processor”. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “processor” of the patent invention is capable of the same functions mentioned in the claimed invention for efficiency and accuracy. The provision of mechanical or automated means to replace manual activity was held to have been obvious. In re Venner 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958); In re Rundell 9 USPQ 220 (CCPA 1931).
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system for triggering a group of multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions. Thus, the claim is a machine, which is one the statutory categories of invention. Claims 2-14 also are dependent on Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 1 recite a judicial exception and identify the abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon. Claim 1 recites receiving two or more contiguous groups of MRM for monitoring a known compound…; monitoring each group of the two or more contiguous groups separately…; placing a first group of the two or more contiguous groups on a list… detecting a sentinel transition of the first group using a tandem mass spectrometer; placing a next group of the two or more contiguous groups on a list…; and adjusting a parameter of the separation device to a value…
The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (See MPEP 2106(a)(2)(III)). In this case, the “receiving”, “monitoring”, and “placing” steps cover performances of the limitations in the mind.
The claim also recites a processor carrying out the receiving, monitoring, and placing steps. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the receiving, monitoring, and places steps would fall under the abstract idea groups of mental processes. (Step 2A -Prong 1: Yes)
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 recites receiving two or more contiguous groups of MRM for monitoring a known compound…; monitoring each group of the two or more contiguous groups separately…; placing a first group of the two or more contiguous groups on a list… detecting a sentinel transition of the first group using a tandem mass spectrometer…; placing a next group of the two or more contiguous groups on a list…; and adjusting a parameter of the separation device to a value…
Claim 1 has additional elements such as a separation device, ion source, and tandem mass spectrometer for data gathering which are a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have indicated that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) (discussing TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto., LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, these additional elements do do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A -Prong 2: No)
Step 2B: Claim 1 recites data gathering components which are claimed at a high level of generality and well known in the prior art. Claim 1 does not have any steps or feature which are significantly more than the judicial exception because the other elements of the claims other than the abstract idea and determine are not beyond what is well understood, routine and conventional within the prior art as taught below.
Claims 2-14 also do not appear to have ‘significantly’ more.
Claims 2-4 merely recite types of samples that can be examined by the system, which are taught in the prior art below. Claims 5-14 recite parameters for the system in high generality and those parameters are known in the prior art below. Since they are claimed at a high level of generality, there are no meaningful limitations claimed, such as a particular or unconventional machine or transformation of a particular article. (Step 2B: No)
Thus, claim 1 is ineligible. Claims 2-14 are dependent on claim 1, and are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 7-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites "the one or more small molecules". This limitation is not mentioned in claim 1 which claim 4 is dependent upon. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets claim 4 being dependent on claim 3 for examination purposes.
Claim 7 recites "a predetermined probability". The limitation is not defined in the specification. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-14 depend on claim 7 thus are also rejected.
In claim 8, the term “high” in the expression “predetermined probability is high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The expression “predetermined probability is high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 9, the term “low” in the expression “predetermined probability is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Similarly, the expression “predetermined probability is low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "solvents". The relationship between the claimed solvents, LC gradient time parameter, and sample mixture is unclear. The limitation will be interpreted as “solvents of the sample mixture” for clarity (Spec., para 0088, 0090; Drawings. Fig. 2).
Claims 11 and 12 are dependent upon claim 10, thus also rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lemoine (US 20190371586 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lemoine teaches a system for triggering a group of multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) (para 0024), comprising:
a separation device that separates one or more known compounds from a sample mixture (para 0071) and allows processor-controlled adjustment of at least one parameter of the separation device during the separation (para 0084);
an ion source that ionizes the separated one or more compounds received from the separation device, producing an ion beam of one or more precursor ions (para 0072);
a tandem mass spectrometer that receives the ion beam from the ion source and for each cycle of a plurality of cycles executes on the ion beam a series of MRM precursor ion to product ion transitions read from a list, wherein for each transition of the list, the tandem mass spectrometer selects and fragments a precursor ion of the transition and mass analyzes a product ion of the transition (para 0074); and
a processor in communication with the tandem mass spectrometer that receives two or more contiguous groups of MRM transitions for monitoring the one or more known compounds (para 0076-0077).
Lemoine further teaches that the processor is a computer (para 0075). Thus, the processor is capable of monitoring each group of the two or more contiguous groups separately during the plurality of cycles and including at least one sentinel transition that identifies a next group of the two or more contiguous groups that is monitored and identifying a value for the at least one parameter for the next group, placing a first group of the two or more contiguous groups on the list of the tandem mass spectrometer, and when at least one sentinel transition of the first group is detected by the tandem mass spectrometer, placing a next group of the two or more contiguous groups identified by the at least one sentinel transition on the list and adjusting at least one parameter of the separation device to a value identified by the at least one sentinel transition for the next group, since the processor can receive commands and be programmed to carry out the claimed function (para 0075).
Regarding claim 3, Lemoine teaches the invention of claim 1. Lemoine further teaches one or more known compounds comprise one or more known small molecules (para 0003).
Regarding claim 4, Lemoine teaches the invention of claim 1. Lemoine further teaches one or more small molecules comprise pesticides or drugs of abuse (para 0003).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemoine (US 20190371586 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakayama et al. (US 20120156710 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lemoine teaches the invention of claim 1. Lemoine further teaches one or more known compounds comprise one or more known peptides or proteins (para 0007).
Lemoine does not teach one or more known compounds comprise one or more known peptides tryptically digested from one or more proteins.
However, Nakayama teaches a method for quantifying protein by a multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) (para 0002). Nakayama further teaches using tryptic peptides for the benefit of determining the mole quantity of the original protein in the sample (para 0050). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lemoine with one or more known compounds comprise one or more known peptides tryptically digested from one or more proteins as taught by Nakayama for the benefit of determining the mole quantity of the original protein in the sample (para 0050).
Regarding claim 5, Lemoine teaches the invention of claim 1. Lemoine further teaches one or more known compounds include at least one known compound of the mixture (para 0039).
Lemoine does not teach a corresponding isotopically labeled version of the at least one known compound added to the mixture in a known concentration to act as a standard for quantitation.
Nakayama teaches labeling fragmented collection of peptides being subjected to labeling with a stable isotope for standard quantification (para 0051-0052). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lemoine with a corresponding isotopically labeled version of the at least one known compound added to the mixture in a known concentration to act as a standard for quantitation as taught by Nakayama for the benefit of detection of more proteins (para 0006).
Regarding claim 6, Lemoine in view of Nakayama teaches the invention of claim 5. Lemoine further teaches the separation device comprises a liquid chromatography (LC) device (para 0071) and the at least one parameter comprises an LC gradient time of the separation (para 0043).
Regarding claim 7, Lemoine in view of Nakayama teaches the invention of claim 6. As mentioned above, Lemoine teaches that the processor is a computer (para 0075). Thus, a processor in the system is capable of receiving the next group including a transition for the at least one known compound of the mixture and a transition for the isotopically labeled version of the at least one known compound and wherein the value identified by the at least one sentinel transition for the LC gradient time of the separation is based on a predetermined probability that the mixture includes an interference with the at least one known compound, since the processor can receive command input and be programmed to carry out the claimed function.
Regarding claim 8, Lemoine in view of Nakayama teaches the invention of claim 7. As mentioned above, Lemoine teaches that the processor is a computer (para 0075). Thus, a processor in the system is capable of determining if the predetermined probability is high, the value increases the LC gradient time, since the processor can receive command input and be programmed to carry out the claimed function.
Regarding claim 9, Lemoine in view of Nakayama teaches the invention of claim 7. As mentioned above, Lemoine teaches that the processor is a computer (para 0075). Thus, a processor in the system is capable of determining if the predetermined probability is low, the value decreases the LC gradient time, since the processor can receive command input and be programmed to carry out the claimed function.
Regarding claim 10, Lemoine in view of Nakayama teaches the invention of claim 7. As mentioned above, Lemoine teaches that the processor is a computer (para 0075). Thus, a processor in the system is capable of adjusting the LC gradient time by adjusting a proportional valve between solvents, since the processor can receive command input and be programmed to carry out the claimed function.
Regarding claim 11, Lemoine in view of Nakayama teaches the invention of claim 10.
Lemoine does not teach there are two solvents in liquid chromatography.
Nakayama teaches there are two solvents in liquid chromatography (para 0085-0086) for the benefit of effective separation (para 0055). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Lemoine with two solvents in liquid chromatography for the benefit of effective separation (para 0055).
Regarding claim 12, Lemoine in view of Nakayama teaches the invention of claim 11.
Lemoine does not teach two solvents comprise an aqueous solvent and an organic solvent.
Nakayama teaches two solvents comprise an aqueous solvent and an organic solvent (para 0085-0086) for the benefit of better analyte detection. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lemoine with two solvents comprising an aqueous solvent and an organic solvent as taught by Nakayama for the benefit of better analyte detection.
Regarding claim 13, Lemoine in view of Nakayama teaches the claimed invention of claim 7. Lemoine teaches the tandem mass spectrometer further detects compound intensities for the transition for the at least one known compound and standard intensities for the transition for the isotopically labeled version of the at least one known compound for one or more cycles of the plurality of cycles (para 0038). As mentioned above, Lemoine teaches that the processor is a computer (para 0075). Thus, a processor in the system is capable of calculating a quantitative value for the at least one known compound from the detected compound intensities, detected standard intensities, and the known concentration, since the processor can receive command input and be programmed to carry out the claimed function.
Regarding claim 14, Lemoine in view of Nakayama teaches the claimed invention of claim 13. As mentioned above, Lemoine teaches that the processor is a computer (para 0075). Thus, a processor in the system is capable of detecting standard intensities for the transition for the isotopically labeled version of the at least one known compound and using them to generate a calibration curve and the quantitative value for the at least one known compound is calculated using the calibration curve, since the processor can receive command input and be programmed to carry out the claimed function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENA BERA whose telephone number is (571)272-9964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/H.R.B./
Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights