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 .
Response to Amendment
The IDs of 08/26/2025 has been considered.
In light of the amendments, the 112(f) claim interpretation has changed.
In light of the amendments, the previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, claims 26-28 are rejected under 112(d).
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 10/17/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 16-17, 20, 23, and 25 have been amended; claims 3, 8, 13-14, 18-19, 22, and 24 were canceled; claims 5-7, 10-12, 15, 21, and 26-28 remain unchanged; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-28 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 10/21/2021
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
Examiner has removed the claim interpretation and replaced it with the updated one below. The analysis module and interface module require a claim interpretation now.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections:
The previous 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments, thus these arguments are deemed moot.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections:
The previous 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments, thus these arguments are deemed moot.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the updated claims are patent-eligible under the first part of the Alice two-part test. Applicant elaborates and states the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner however respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant to the updated 101 rejection section.
Applicant further states that a technical solution to a technical problem is being recited in the claims. Applicant further cites court cases to support this. The technical solution is described as a clear improvement over traditional data storage, and there is a clear transformation of data types to provide universal accessibility to the data and tools in the storage system. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the claims do not reflect the above statement. Furthermore, the claims recite an abstract concept related to data analysis and storage and an improvement to this can be seen as an improvement to the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the previously-cited Crewe reference. Examiner has now updated the rejections in view of the amendments and the rejections now rely on the Walker et al. reference.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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: “at least one analysis module” and “an interface module” in claim 16. Paragraph [0046] discloses that the “interface module” is a software running on a processing unit and paragraph [0121] discloses that the “analysis module” is a software running on a processing unit.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 26-28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 26 recites “according to claim 24”, however there is no claim 24. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 27-28 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 26.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, and 15 are drawn to a method and claims 16-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-28 are drawn to a system, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-28 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a method for analysis in medical diagnostics, wherein the method comprises:
1) utilizing at least one measurement device to collect measurement data on a blood sample or a urine sample, wherein the at least one measurement device comprises a spectrometer and/or an imaging device;
2) exchanging the measurement data between the at least one measurement device and a) an interface module according to a request from a pre-defined set of requests, wherein a) the interface module delivers the measurement data to b) a data storage system, wherein the data storage system comprises at least one of a database, a data warehouse and/or a remote server;
3) communicating, by c) an analysis module, with the interface module to retrieve at least a portion of the measurement data from b) the data storage system using a response from a pre-defined set of responses;
4) performing, by c) the analysis module, a spectral analysis on the at least a portion of the measurement data to generate an analysis result;
5) exchanging the analysis result between c) the analysis module and a) the interface module according to another request from the pre-defined set of requests, wherein a) the interface module delivers the analysis result to b) the data storage system;
6) wherein, b) the data storage system and a) the interface module are in communication, and b) the data storage system is accessible through d) a communications endpoint.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) utilizing at least one measurement device to collect measurement data on a blood sample or a urine sample, wherein the at least one measurement device comprises a spectrometer and/or an imaging device, 2) exchanging the measurement data between the at least one measurement device and an interface according to a request from a pre-defined set of requests, wherein the interface delivers the measurement data to a storage, wherein the storage comprises at least one of a database, 3) communicating with the interface to retrieve at least a portion of the measurement data from the storage using a response from a pre-defined set of responses, 4) performing a spectral analysis on the at least a portion of the measurement data to generate an analysis result, 5) exchanging the analysis result between entities according to another request from the pre-defined set of requests, wherein the interface delivers the analysis result to the storage, 6) wherein, the storage and the interface are in communication, and the storage is accessible through communications. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes analyzing and storing data in a manner in which humans can do. Independent claim 16 recites similar limitations and is also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-28 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 16, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2 and 17 add the additional steps of “wherein the data storage system is configured to store a plurality of software-based toolsets, wherein each toolset comprises building blocks for analysing at least the portion of the measurement data” and “in response to a query, transfer one or more toolsets to the interface”; claim 9 adds the additional step of “triggering a measurement of at least one of the at least one measurement device”; claim 11 adds the additional step of “providing at least one of the at least one measurement parameter to the at least one of the at least one measurement device”; claim 12 adds the additional steps of “transmitting a request for providing the at least one of the at least one measurement parameter to the at least one of the at least one measurement device to the interface module” and “in response, the interface module providing the at least one of the at least measurement parameter to the at least one of the at least one measurement device”; and claim 15 adds the additional step of “retrieving at least a portion of the analysis data from the data storage system”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 4-7, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-28 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-28 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 16 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) an interface module, b) a data storage system, wherein the data storage system comprises at least one of a database, a data warehouse and/or a remote server, c) an analysis module, d) a communications endpoint, and e) at least one measurement device (in claim 16) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) an interface module, b) a data storage system, c) an analysis module, and d) a communications endpoint in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as determining data from a set of data) such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification for lack of description of anything but what may be considered as generic computing components for these elements, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the e) at least one measurement device in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) an interface module, b) a data storage system, wherein the data storage system comprises at least one of a database, a data warehouse and/or a remote server, c) an analysis module, d) a communications endpoint, and e) at least one measurement device to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention stores analyzed measurement data utilizing a) an interface module, b) a data storage system, wherein the data storage system comprises at least one of a database, a data warehouse and/or a remote server, c) an analysis module, and d) a communications endpoint, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Lastly, the e) at least one measurement device in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives measurement data, and transmits the data to an analysis module over a network, for example the Internet.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-28 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 15-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2004/0122790 to Walker et al. in view of U.S. 2016/0377639 to Babado-Singh.
As per claim 1, Walker et al. teaches a method for analysis in medical diagnostics, wherein the method comprises:
--utilizing at least one measurement device to collect measurement data on a blood sample or a urine sample, (see: paragraph [0050] where there is collection via a system which collects body fluids. Also see: paragraph [0069] where the sample is that of blood or urine) wherein the at least one measurement device comprises a spectrometer and/or an imaging device; (see: paragraph [0010] where there is an imaging system)
--exchanging the measurement data between the at least one measurement device and an interface module according to a request from a pre-defined set of requests, (see: paragraph [0050] and FIG. 1 where there is an exchange of measurement data between the measurement device (systems for collecting and analyzing samples) and an interface module (interfaces 8 and 16) to a request for data) wherein the interface module delivers the measurement data to a data storage system, (see: FIG. 1 and paragraph [0050] where the interface 16 delivers measurement data to the storage system 18) wherein the data storage system comprises at least one of a database, a data warehouse and/or a remote server; (see: FIG. 1 and paragraph [0054] where there is a federated database 14. Also see: FIG. 5 and paragraph [0074] where the raw data is being stored in a PACS)
--communicating, by an analysis module, with the interface module to retrieve at least a portion of the measurement data from the data storage system using a response from a pre-defined set of responses; (see: paragraph [0410] where there is content-based information retrieval and also see: paragraph [0415] where there is retrieval of data from a knowledge base. Also see: FIGS. 1 and 5. Data is being retrieved here via an interface for the purposes of analysis from the data storage system (the databases). The retrieval is based on certain attributes (a response from a pre-defined set of responses))
--performing, by the analysis module, an analysis on the at least a portion of the measurement data to generate an analysis result; (see: paragraph [0410] where there is an analysis performed on the retrieved information (the portion of information))
--exchanging the analysis result between the analysis module and the interface module according to another request from the pre-defined set of requests, (see: paragraph [0426] and [0441] where there is displaying of the analysis results according to a request to output/display this data) wherein the interface module delivers the analysis result to the data storage system; (see: paragraph [0074] where the processed (analyzed) data is being stored in a PACS (data storage system))
--wherein, the data storage system and the interface module are in communication, (see: FIGS. 3 and 5 where the storage system (such as PACS 48) is in communication with interface 8) and the data storage system is accessible through a communications endpoint (see: FIGS. 3 and 5 where the interfaces provide access to the databases. The interfaces are computing endpoints as explained in paragraphs [0053] – [0054]).
Walker et al. may not further, specifically teach:
--an analysis as a spectral analysis.
Bahado-Singh teaches:
--an analysis as a spectral analysis (see: paragraph [0118] where there is a spectroscopy analysis).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the type of analysis as taught by Bahado-Singh for the analysis as disclosed by Walker et al. since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Walker et al. already teaches of performing an analysis upon samples thus it would be obvious to replace the types of analyses as predictable results of using an analysis would be obtained. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 5, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Walker et al. further teaches wherein the medical diagnostics is metabolite diagnostics (see: paragraphs [[0135] and [0251] where there is a metabolite diagnostic).
As per claim 6, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Walker et al. further teaches wherein the measurement data comprises spectral data (see: paragraph [0410] where there is spectral data).
As per claim 7, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the method of claim 6, see discussion of claim 6. Bahado-Singh further teaches wherein the spectral data comprises at least one nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrum (see: paragraphs [0014] and [0119] where there is NMR spectra data).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Walker et al. further teaches wherein the method further comprises retrieving at least a portion of the analysis data from the data storage system (see: paragraph [0410] where information is being received from storage).
As per claim 16, claim 16 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 17, claim 17 is similar to claim 2 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is similar to claim 4 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 21, claim 21 is similar to claim 5 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 23, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the system of claim 16, see discussion of claim 16. Walker et al. further teaches wherein the imaging device is at least one of a computer tomography scanner and/or a magnetic resonance imaging scanner (see: paragraph [0079] where there is an MRI machine).
As per claim 25, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the system of claim 16, see discussion of claim 16. Bahado-Singh further teaches wherein the at least one measurement device comprises a mass spectrometer (see: paragraphs [0014] and [0141] where there is mass spectrometry and a spectrometer).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 16, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 26, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the system of claim 24, see discussion of claim 24. Bahado-Singh further teaches wherein the at least one measurement device comprises a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometer (see: paragraphs [0014] and [0141] where there is NMR spectrometry and a spectrometer).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 27, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the system of claim 26, see discussion of claim 26. Bahado-Singh further teaches wherein the measurement data comprise NMR data (see: paragraphs [0014] and [0119] where there is NMR spectra data).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 28, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the system of claim 27, see discussion of claim 27. Bahado-Singh further teaches wherein the NMR data comprise at least one NMR spectrum (see: paragraphs [0014] and [0119] where there is NMR spectra data).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2004/0122790 to Walker et al. in view of U.S. 2016/0377639 to Babado-Singh as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2005/0025349 to Crewe.
As per claim 2, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the method comprises
h. wherein the data storage system is configured to store a plurality of software-based toolsets, wherein each toolset comprises building blocks for analysing at least the portion of the measurement data; and
i. in response to a query, transfer one or more toolsets to the interface.
Crewe et al. teaches:
--wherein the method comprises
h. wherein the data storage system is configured to store a plurality of software-based toolsets, (see: paragraph [0041] where there is providing of a plurality of software-based toolsets in the form of applications) wherein each toolset comprises building blocks for analysing at least the portion of the measurement data; (see: paragraph [0041] where there is providing of a plurality of software-based toolsets in the form of applications. These applications are for analyzing data) and
i. in response to a query, transfer one or more toolsets to the interface (see: paragraph [0041] where these toolsets/applications are being transferred to a user for manipulating data).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to wherein the method comprises h. wherein the data storage system is configured to store a plurality of software-based toolsets, wherein each toolset comprises building blocks for analysing at least the portion of the measurement data and i. in response to a query, transfer one or more toolsets to the interface as taught by Crewe in the method as taught by Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination with the motivation(s) of being providing an support for the PACS (see: paragraph [0009] of Crewe).
As per claim 4, Walker et al., Bahado-Singh, and Crewe in combination teaches the method of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Walker et al. further teaches of the analysis is used for medical diagnostics (see: paragraph [0150] where there is a medical diagnostic).
Bahado-Singh further teaches spectral analysis (see: paragraph [0118] where there is a spectroscopy analysis).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2004/0122790 to Walker et al. in view of U.S. 2016/0377639 to Babado-Singh as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,449,293 to Chen et al..
As per claim 9, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein collecting measurement data on the sample comprises triggering a measurement of at least one of the at least one measurement device.
Chen et al. teaches:
--wherein collecting measurement data on the sample comprises triggering a measurement of at least one of the at least one measurement device (see: column 5, lines 10-21 there is triggering of a measurement device).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein collecting measurement data on the sample comprises triggering a measurement of at least one of the at least one measurement device as taught by Chen et al. in the method as taught by Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination with the motivation(s) of interfacing with underlying data in a more efficient manner (see: column 1, lines 34-36 of Chen et al.).
As per claim 10, Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the measurement on the sample is at least partially based on at least one measurement parameter of at least one of the at least one measurement device.
Chen et al. teaches:
--wherein the measurement on the sample is at least partially based on at least one measurement parameter of at least one of the at least one measurement device (see: column 1, lines 40-52 where the device is performing measurements on a sample based on the set parameters).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the measurement on the sample is at least partially based on at least one measurement parameter of at least one of the at least one measurement device as taught by Chen et al. in the method as taught by Walker et al. and Bahado-Singh in combination with the motivation(s) of interfacing with underlying data in a more efficient manner (see: column 1, lines 34-36 of Chen et al.).
As per claim 11, Walker et al., Bahado-Singh, and Chen et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Chen et al. further teaches wherein the method further comprises providing at least one of the at least one measurement parameter to the at least one of the at least one measurement device (see: column 1, lines 40-52 where the device is performing measurements on a sample based on the set parameters. The parameters are being provided to the measurement device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, Walker et al., Bahado-Singh, and Chen et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Chen et al. further teaches wherein providing the at least one of the at least one measurement parameter to the at least one of the at least one measurement device comprises
j. transmitting a request for providing the at least one of the at least one measurement parameter to the at least one of the at least one measurement device to the interface module, (see: column 1, lines 40-52 where the device is transmission of a request for parameters).and
k. in response, the interface module providing the at least one of the at least measurement parameter to the at least one of the at least one measurement device (see: column 1, lines 40-52 where the parameters are being provided in response to the prompt of requesting parameters).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684