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
Claims 1-9 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/14/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bohnsack et al. (U.S. 2019/0107548, hereafter referred to as Bohnsack).
Regarding claim 10, Bohnsack teaches an apparatus, comprising: a processor 120; a storage device (see para. 0026-0028) storing instructions, that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to provide for display of an interactive graphical user interface (see para. 0036, ‘GUI’); and the interactive graphical user interface including: a laboratory inventory management system module 210 configured for managing projects, samples and inventories (see Abstract, ‘LEVIS’); an electronic lab notebook module (see Abstract, ‘ELN’) in communication laboratory inventory management system module; a platform module in communication with the electronic lab notebook module; and the platform module providing access to a set of analytical workflows and a set of intelligent tools (see para. 0025, ‘program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types’).
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.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohnsack et al. (U.S. 2019/0107548, hereafter referred to as Bohnsack) in view of Appel et al. (U.S. 2006/0003460, hereafter referred to as Appel).
Regarding claim 12, Bohnsack does not explicitly teach wherein the set of intelligent tools comprises a peak tool that when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform steps comprising: obtaining information regarding the sample; determining theoretical masses of constituent elements of the sample; obtaining experimental data for the sample from mass spectrometry; determining peak areas for the experimental data; and comparing the peak areas and the theoretical masses to determine percentages of peak areas in comparison to the theoretical masses associated therewith.
Appel teaches a peak tool that when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform steps comprising: obtaining information regarding the sample; determining theoretical masses of constituent elements of the sample; obtaining experimental data for the sample from mass spectrometry; determining peak areas for the experimental data; and comparing the peak areas and the theoretical masses to determine percentages of peak areas in comparison to the theoretical masses associated therewith (see claim 11, ‘wherein said experimental data correlation method comprises one or more of the following methods: (i) shared peaks counts (ii) comparison of column elution times; (iii) comparison of relative intensities of specific peaks; (iv) comparison of intensities of specific peaks in relation to an internal or external calibration standard; (v) spectral alignment; (vi) clustering algorithms; (vii) statistical data analysis’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Bohnsack with the teaching of Appel since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the steps further comprise generating a report including results from the comparing (see para. 0079, ‘All test results and adjustment cycles are recorded and stored by the Software platform, and are available for performance-analytical processes as well as direct reporting and correlation to experimental or assay results’).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Appel further teaches wherein the sample is of a drug and/or biologic substance (see para. 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Bohnsack with the teaching of Appel it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 18, Appel further teaches wherein the steps further comprise generating a reference dataset for the subject dataset (see para. 0068, ‘Concerning modifications, any mutation or PTM of the source protein is susceptible to drastically modify the MS/MS spectra in comparison to the unmodified protein in the reference database’).
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Brock et al. (U.S. 2003/0139885, hereafter referred to as Brock).
Regarding claim 11, Brock further teaches the set of analytical workflows are configured for tandem operation of two of the set of analytical workflows; and the two of the set of analytical workflows have data dependent exchanges (see claim 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Bohnsack with the teaching of Brock since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 12, 14 and 15, Bohnsack does not explicitly teach wherein the set of intelligent tools comprises a peak tool that when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform steps comprising: obtaining information regarding the sample; determining theoretical masses of constituent elements of the sample; obtaining experimental data for the sample from mass spectrometry; determining peak areas for the experimental data; and comparing the peak areas and the theoretical masses to determine percentages of peak areas in comparison to the theoretical masses associated therewith.
Brock teaches a peak tool that when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform steps comprising: obtaining information regarding the sample; determining theoretical masses of constituent elements of the sample; obtaining experimental data for the sample from mass spectrometry; determining peak areas for the experimental data; and comparing the peak areas and the theoretical masses to determine percentages of peak areas in comparison to the theoretical masses associated therewith; wherein the report further includes the theoretical masses and the experimental data (see para. 0062, ‘generating the first database of identified protein sequences can include a) providing a mass peak list generated from the experimental data; b) providing a second list of theoretical masses generated in silico from a second protein sequence database; and c) comparing the second list with the mass peak list. In this embodiment, the comparison of sample peaks to a database of peptide sequence peak positions (e.g., the universe of peptides available) can be used to make the first assignments in the experimental mass spectrum)’.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Bohnsack with the teaching of Brock since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the steps further comprise generating a report including results from the comparing (see para. 0079, ‘All test results and adjustment cycles are recorded and stored by the Software platform, and are available for performance-analytical processes as well as direct reporting and correlation to experimental or assay results’).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights