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 without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1, 3, 5-10, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grothe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0203284 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grothe discloses a method of calibration of mass spectrometry data comprising:
Obtaining at least one peak detected mass spectrum (paragraph 0049);
Generating theoretical m/z values for all elemental compositions consistent with any specified rules over a restricted m/z range or ranges (paragraph 0055);
Determining possible matches between the theoretical m/z values and peaks in the mass spectrum (paragraph 0056);
Adjusting a set of calibration parameters based on the matches (paragraph 0056); and
Choosing calibration parameters which optimize the likelihood of the mass spectral data given the calibration parameters and the set of possible matches, or which optimize the posterior probability of the calibration parameters given the data and the set of possible matches (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 3, Grothe discloses wherein determining possible matches between the theoretical m/z values and peaks in the mass spectrum comprises using a weighted least square method (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 5, Grothe discloses wherein the theoretical m/z values comprise a reference set of possible organic molecules (paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 6, Grothe discloses wherein the reference set of possible organic molecules have a composition in the form Cn1Hn2Nn3On4 (Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 7, Grothe discloses wherein n1<=N2<=2n1+2 (Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 8, Grothe discloses wherein n3+n4<=4N, wherein N is 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 (Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 9, Grothe discloses wherein the step of adjusting a set of calibration parameters is made without reference to adding one or more intrinsic or internal calibrants to the sample (abstract, paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 10, Grothe discloses wherein the step of adjusting a set of calibration parameters is made without reference to mass analyzing one or more extrinsic or external calibrants or lock masses (abstract, paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 12, Grothe discloses applying the method to a method of mass spectrometry (paragraph 0010).
Claim 13 is drawn to the apparatus for performing the method of claim 1, and the same rejection applies mutatis mutandis.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grothe.
Regarding claim 4, Grothe discloses the method of claim 1; although Grothe does not specifically teach wherein the theoretical m/z values have a maximum mass or mass-to-charge ratio selected from the group consisting of <100; 100-200; 200-300; 300-400; and 400-500, Grothe does teach that the method may be used “to analyze any number of different types of samples that will be readily apparent to those of skill in the art. Other examples of chemical compounds or elemental compositions that may be analyzed in this manner include but are by no means limited to polynucleotides, hydrocarbon or petroleum products, combinatorial libraries, and polymeric samples. Further, the calibration system may also be used to analyze the compounds or elemental compositions present in liquids such as wine or other beverages (paragraph 0059). Selecting a reference set of possible or predicted elemental compositions with a maximum mass or mass to charge ratio selected from the claimed group would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as a matter of routinely adjusting result-effective variables to achieve predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, Grothe fails to teach wherein determining possible matches between the theoretical m/z values and peaks in the mass spectrum comprises using matching criteria, wherein the matching criteria is a function of peak mass and amplitude. Regarding claim 11, Grothe fails to teach excluding form the theoretical m/z values one or more elemental compositions which are determined either to have or likely to have a low or relatively low abundance, or to be relatively unlikely to be present in the sample.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MASKELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10A-6P.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MICHAEL MASKELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878 25 September 2026
Prosecution Insights