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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on July 07, 2026, wherein claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are geared towards the newly amended claims with newly added limitations. The newly added limitations and the newly amended claims are considered and discussed for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
The newly added limitation do not help overcome the §101 rejection. Applicants’ concept is regarding finding a better cleaning solution to purchase. Information is compared and time savings is determined (note that in the amended claims the compositions and other abstract information is compared – the claims are not directed to actually creating any new chemical composition). There is also a determination of profits (a limitation that Applicant has cancelled from the current claim set). Applicant uses mathematics calculation (and mathematical values – e.g. time per sample, cleaning time per cycle, samples per batch, batches per period, and reanalysis rate) and the results are used for data analysis (i.e. Applicants claims are mainly towards information analysis and decision based on obtained abstract type information). Applicant’s claims recite using received/obtained information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. time period information, materials, cleaning time, numbers (calibration, samples, batches), costs/issues (occurrence of carryover), and the like), data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, evaluations, calculations (mathematical concepts used), profit determinations/calculations, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (between which material is best). The limitations of the independent claims (1, 7) and claim 6, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (profit determination by selecting a more efficient material to use in a process)); and mathematical concepts (multiple calculations).
The claims recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations or no technical limitations at all (for example, computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7); computer-implemented (in claim 1’s dependent claims 3-5)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea – organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (profit determination by selecting a more efficient material to use in a process)); and mathematical concepts (multiple calculations)) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7); computer-implemented (in claim 1’s dependent claims 3-5)). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (for example, computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7); computer-implemented (in claim 1’s dependent claims 3-5)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
Additionally, under step 2B, Applicants’ claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical components (for example, computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7); computer-implemented (in claim 1’s dependent claims 3-5)) or combination of elements in the independent claims and dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, Applicants’ claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claims does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
See detailed rejection below.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above §101 discussion present in the “response to Arguments” section is fully incorporated in this rejection.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1 and 3-5 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claim 6 is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture), and claim 7 is directed to a device (i.e. machine). Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-7 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 7) and claim 6 are directed to determining costs and profitability what changing materials/resources type (different cleaning solution) in a liquid chromatograph working environment and to the mitigating of issues (carryover – an old well-known issue in liquid chromatograph that requires cleaning), costs, and time are determined when different cleaning solutions are used (and compared) and profitability is determined regarding the cleaning solutions. The independent claims (1, 7) and claim 6 recite using received/obtained information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. time period information, materials, cleaning time, numbers (calibration, samples, batches), costs/issues (occurrence of carryover), and the like), data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, evaluations, calculations (mathematical concepts used), profit determinations/calculations, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (between which material is best). The limitations of the independent claims (1, 7) and claim 6, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (profit determination by selecting a more efficient material to use in a process)); and mathematical concepts (multiple calculations). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms or no technical/computer/computing elements at all (computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7)), in the context of the independent claims (1, 7) and claim 6, the claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (profit determination by selecting a more efficient material to use in a process)); and mathematical concepts (multiple calculations)).
As shown above, the independent claims (1, 7) and claim 6 recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations or no technical limitations at all (computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea – organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (profit determination by selecting a more efficient material to use in a process)); and mathematical concepts (multiple calculations)) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7)). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 7) and clam 6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, paras. 0035-0040 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant’s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (computer-implemented, (in independent claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer, computer-implemented (in claim 6); device, processor, memory (in independent claim 7)) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims (1, 7) and claim 6 do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (1, 7) and claim 6 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (3-5) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. The above rejection discussed for the independent claims fully applies to the dependent claims.
The dependent claims (3-5) further state using received/obtained information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. time period information, materials, cleaning time, numbers (calibration, samples, batches), costs/issues (occurrence of carryover), and the like), data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, evaluations, calculations (mathematical concepts used), profit determinations/calculations, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (between which material is best). These dependent claims also cover methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (profit determination by selecting a more efficient material to use in a process)); and mathematical concepts (multiple calculations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements (computer-implemented (in claim 1’s dependent claims 3-5)). (MPEP 2106.04). The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions as the independent claims above to implement the abstract idea. Hence, the abstract idea is not integrated in to a practical application because there are no additional elements does and there is nothing to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, the dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself and the dependent claims (similar to the independent claims) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite any additional elements (computer-implemented (in claim 1’s dependent claims 3-5)). Viewed as a whole, dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the dependent claims (3-5) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Prior art discussion (not a prior art rejection – but remains rejected under §101 above)
As per the independent claims (1, 7) and claim 6, the closet prior art are Apacible et al., (US 8,239,641) in view of Mahajan et al., (US 2015/0093800), further in view of Papageorgiou et al., (US 2020/0184401). However, neither Apacible nor Mahajan nor Papageorgiou specifically disclose, in combination, the limitations of “wherein the analysis time required for one-time analysis, the cleaning time required for one-time cleaning of the liquid chromatograph, the number of calibrations per batch, the number of samples analyzed per batch, the number of batches analyzed during the first period, and the reanalysis rate that requires a reanalysis to confirm whether carryover has occurred are numerical values input by a user using an input unit, wherein the first cleaning solution is a solution having the same composition as a separation solution used for sample separation, and wherein the second cleaning solution is a solution having a composition different from that of the separation solution.” The specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicants’ Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant’s current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims (3-5), these claims depend on the independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims are still rejected under §101 rejection and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is follows:
Smith (US 2018/0193892): Discusses comparing two separate materials/structures for reinforcing to see structural advantages, such as improved resistance to buckling and offer cost-savings and throughput advantages useful for commercial-scale fabrication (for profit making).
Kenkre et al., (US 2014/0222477): A substitutability rule may specify a general relationship between resource types, wherein said general relationship may permit a first number of units of an available resource type to be substituted for a second number of units of an unavailable resource type. A set of substitutability rules may not be transitive, meaning that a first rule stating that units of a resource type A may replace a unit of a resource type B and a second rule stating that units of resource type B may replace a unit of a resource type C, does not necessarily imply that units of A may replace one or more units of C. Substitutability rules may be directional, meaning that a substitutability rule stating that units of a resource type A may replace units of a resource type B does not necessarily imply that units of B may replace one or more units of A. Substitutions may incur substitution costs and time-delay costs.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights