CTNF 18/606,770 CTNF 79108 Detailed Action Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. IDS The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 15, 2024 is being considered by the Examiner. Drawing The drawing filed on March 15, 2024 is accepted by the Examiner. Specification 06-31 AIA The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. In reference to claims 1-9: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract) idea without significantly more. The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept." In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold: A data processing apparatus that performs correction processing on target chromatogram data obtained by a chromatograph apparatus, to align a time axis of the target chromatogram data with a time axis of reference chromatogram data defined as a reference , the data processing apparatus comprising: a memory that stores chromatogram data obtained by the chromatograph apparatus; and a processor that performs the correction processing, wherein the processor is configured to obtain a first correspondence in which at least one reference peak detected from the reference chromatogram data and at least one target peak detected from the target chromatogram data are brought in correspondence with each other , obtain a second correspondence in which a reference data set included in the reference chromatogram data and a target data set included in the target chromatogram data are brought in correspondence with each other, by using a first similarity between the second correspondence and the first correspondence , and correct the time axis of the target chromatogram data in accordance with the second correspondence . Step 2A: Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " performs correction processing on target chromatogram data , align a time axis of the target chromatogram data with a time axis of reference chromatogram data defined as a reference , at least one reference peak detected from the reference chromatogram data and at least one target peak detected from the target chromatogram data are brought in correspondence with each other , obtain a second correspondence in which a reference data set included in the reference chromatogram data and a target data set included in the target chromatogram data are brought in correspondence with each other, by using a first similarity between the second correspondence and the first correspondence , and correct the time axis of the target chromatogram data in accordance with the second correspondence .” Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis. Prong II: This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of " A data processing apparatus, [having a] chromatograph apparatus, [including] the data processing apparatus comprising: a memory that stores chromatogram data obtained by the chromatograph apparatus; and a processor that performs the correction processing, wherein the processor is configured to [carry through the steps in the method]”. However, these components are considered generic computer parts that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: “obtain a second correspondence in which a reference data set included in the reference chromatogram data and a target data set included in the target chromatogram data are brought in correspondence with each other, by using a first similarity between the second correspondence and the first correspondence, and correct the time axis of the target chromatogram data in accordance with the second correspondence” . The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. The claim establishes those comparison as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. Step 2B: Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim 9 is analogous to claim 1, and it is directed to a method. Claim 9 is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well. Dependent claim 2 : the instant claim is directed to an algorithm, specifically dynamic time warping and used in search for the purposes of data gathering, and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent claim 3 : the instant claim is directed to how the processor compares a given data point, and is considered part of the data analysis and would be considered a generic process of an abstract idea by the processor. Dependent claim 4 : the instant claim is directed to setting peak value and carrying through the comparison of the similarity between the reference value and the given data points and is considered an abstract idea of a human thought process or activity. Dependent claim 5 : the instant claim is directed to the function of the mass spectrometer, which is used to collect chromatogram data; therefore, it is considered part of the data gathering process at a higher level of generality. Dependent claims 6-8 : the instant claim is directed to correlation of the data points and the process of correcting the data points using the reference data points; and would be considered abstract idea of a human thought process or human activity. Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C .102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Excoffier (U.S. Patent No. 6,816,789, hereon Excoffier ) In reference to claim 1: Excoffier discloses a data processing apparatus that performs correction processing on target chromatogram data obtained by a chromatograph apparatus, to align a time axis of the target chromatogram data with a time axis of reference chromatogram data defined as a reference, the data processing apparatus (see Excoffier , abstract and Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a memory (see Excoffier , Fig. 10, data storage 1008) that stores chromatogram data obtained by the chromatograph apparatus (see unit 1004, chromatograph apparatus); and a processor (see Excoffier , claim 26) that performs the correction processing (see Excoffier , Figs. 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d, illustrate a method for baseline correction), wherein the processor is configured to obtain a first correspondence in which at least one reference peak detected from the reference chromatogram data (see Excoffier , Fig. 1, main peak) and at least one target peak detected from the target chromatogram data are brought in correspondence with each other (see Excoffier , column 7, lines 15-29), obtain a second correspondence in which a reference data set included in the reference chromatogram data and a target data set included in the target chromatogram data are brought in correspondence with each other (see Excoffier column 7, lines 30- 60), by using a first similarity between the second correspondence and the first correspondence (see Excoffier , column 8, lines 36-54), and correct the time axis of the target chromatogram data in accordance with the second correspondence (see Excoffier , column 4, lines 20-36). In reference to claim 9 : Excoffier discloses a correction method of aligning a time axis of target chromatogram data obtained by a chromatograph apparatus with a time axis of reference chromatogram data defined as a reference (see Excoffier , abstract and Figs. 1 and 2), the correction method comprising: obtaining a first correspondence in which at least one reference peak detected from the reference chromatogram data (see Excoffier , Fig. 1, main peak) and at least one target peak detected from the target chromatogram data are brought in correspondence with each other (see Excoffier , column 7, lines 15-29); obtaining a second correspondence in which a reference data set included in the reference chromatogram data and a target data set included in the target chromatogram data are brought in correspondence with each other (see Excoffier , column 7, lies 30-60), by using a first similarity between the second correspondence and the first correspondence (see Excoffier , column 8, lines 36-54); and correcting the time axis of the target chromatogram data in accordance with the second correspondence (see Excoffier , column 4, lines 20-36). Observation on claims 2-8 The subject matter noted in claim 2-8 differs from Excoffier in that Excoffier does not explicitly talks about (see claim 2) “search using dynamic time warping and …the first similarity as a feature value to be used for scoring of each of the plurality of candidates” or in claim 3 “the processor does not incorporate in a candidate for the second the second correspondence, a correspondence including a corresponding point among corresponding points between the reference data set and the target data set, the first similarity being equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold value at the corresponding point,” or in claim 4: “the reference peak being defined as the reference, set a target peak area for each peak of the at least one target peak, with the target peak being defined as the reference, and obtain a second similarity and obtain the first correspondence based on the second similarity, the second similarity being a similarity between a waveform of the chromatogram data included in the reference peak area and a waveform of the chromatogram data included in the target peak area,” or in claim 6: “the processor is configured to obtain correlation between a transformed waveform and a reference waveform and linearly correct the target chromatogram data based on the correlation, the transformed waveform being obtained by translation or warping of a target waveform, the target waveform being a waveform of the target chromatogram data, the reference waveform being a waveform of the reference chromatogram data, and obtain the first correspondence and the second correspondence based on the linearly transformed target chromatogram data.” Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kozawa (U.S. PAP 2017/0219542) discloses a peak extraction method for extracting a true peak from a measured waveform, including acquiring a second derivative waveform; extracting a provisional peak on the basis of a maximum value and/or a minimum value of the second derivative waveform; determining the peak width of the provisional peak on the basis of a model peak function; computing, on the basis of the model peak function, a theoretical value for the height of the provisional peak using two points corresponding to the two ends of the peak width. Kubo et al . (U.S. Patent No. 11,796,518) discloses an evaluation section identifies, in a list of candidate compounds, a group of candidate compounds having the degree of reverse similarity greater than or equal to a first threshold. When all candidates in the group of candidate compounds have differences between the degrees of similarity that are greater than or equal to a second threshold, the evaluation section judges that there is a composite state. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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. /ELIAS DESTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/606,770 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights