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 non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on September 10, 2024, wherein claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 6 is rejected (in addition to the rejection below) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because Applicant has claimed a computer readable medium which could reasonably comprise a transitory propagating signal per se. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re ZIetz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989).The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. Here, Applicant has claimed a computer readable medium, and the specification is silent on whether this medium is explicitly non-transitory medium. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited computer readable medium could be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal per se. As such, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-5 are directed to a method (i.e., process) and claim 7 is directed to a device (i.e. machine). Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, claim 6 is not directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (see signals per se rejection above).
(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 (no computers nor any technical/computing elements recited (in independent claim 1); computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer (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 (no computers nor any technical/computing elements recited (in independent claim 1); computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer (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 (no computers nor any technical/computing elements recited (in independent claim 1); computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer (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 (no computers nor any technical/computing elements recited (in independent claim 1); computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer (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 (no computers nor any technical/computing elements recited (in independent claim 1); computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer (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 (no computers nor any technical/computing elements recited (in independent claim 1); computer-readable storage medium, program (software), computer (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 (2-5) 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 (2-5) 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 (no computers nor any technical/computing elements recited (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-5)). (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 (no computers nor any technical/computing elements recited (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-5)). 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 (2-5) 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).
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.
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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
Note: Applicant’s claims are directed to determining costs and profitability what changing materials/resources type (different cleaning solution) in a liquid chromatograph working environment. 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 rejection below is a combination of known prior art on costs/expanses and time/speed of work done when choosing between different resources and showing profitability. This concept is applied to the liquid chromatograph environment. The actual liquid chromatograph environment and process are not changed in Applicant’s claims – only a comparison is done on cleaning solutions for costs, time, etc., for profit purposes.
As per claim 7, Apacible discloses an analysis device comprising: a processor; and a memory, wherein the processor (Fig. 5; col. 10, line 52 – col. 11, line 30 [processor, memory]) is configured to:
calculate a third period shortened during a second period in a case where a second resource is used in place of a first resource (col. 5, lines 20-34 [storage resources may have different cost and capability profiles…storage resource 118 (first, etc.,) might be cheap and slow, and storage resource 120 (second, etc.,) might be expensive and fast]),
based on an analysis time required for one-time analysis in a case where the resource is used, in an environment/project/work/etc., capable of analysis of a group of units/ways/resources, a task/way/job/etc., time required for one-time a task/way/job/etc., (col. 2, lines 31-45 [different types of storage resources include disk, tape, and semiconductor devices…tape storage (one type of resource) is cheap, but the latency time to retrieve the data from tape may be long…semiconductor memories (another type of resource) offer fast retrieval, but are expensive relative to the volume of data they can store…disks (third type) have a cost and retrieval time that is somewhere between tape and semiconductor devices; see with col. 3, lines 22-55 [consult a storage choice component… parameters concerning the storage of data…set of rules (analysis)…to save costs…considerations…used to make an initial determination about where to store data]]),
in the environment/project/work/etc., the number of calibrations/adjustments per group of types of units/ways/resources, the number of samples analyzed per group of units/ways (see citations above and also see col. 10, lines 12-51 [adjustments…made…distributing data across several storage resources (A, B, and C)…rules may be adjusted or tuned…learn…change performance over time…could adjust any parameters of the storage rules based on any observations about how the current storage is functioning]),
the number of group of units/ways/etc., analyzed during a first period, and a reanalysis rate that requires a reanalysis to confirm whether
calculate a second cost obtained during the second period in a case where the second resource is used instead of the first resource, based on the third period, the number of samples analyzed per group of units/ways/resources/etc., the number of units/ways/resources/etc., analyzed during the first period, and a first cost obtained per one-time analysis (see, for example, claim 20 [ finding that an increase in time to access said data is a detriment that is not offset by a reduced cost of storing said data in said first one of said one or more storage resources instead of in said second one of said one or more storage resources, said first one of said one or more storage resources providing faster retrieval of said data than said second one of said one or more storage resources, said first one of said one or more storage resources storing data for a lower cost than said second one of said one or more storage resources; see with col. 5, lines 20-34 [storage resources may have different cost and capability profiles…storage resource 118 (first, etc.,) might be cheap and slow, and storage resource 120 (second, etc.,) might be expensive and fast]]).
Apacible does not state profit/cost analysis done in liquid chromatograph setting/environment and does not state elements of liquid chromatograph setting/environment such as a cleaning solution, cleaning solution is used, cleaning, in a liquid chromatograph capable of batch analysis, liquid chromatograph, batch processing in liquid chromatograph setting/environment, batches analyzed, and carryover (within liquid chromatograph setting/environment) (the note above directed to Applicant’s claimed concept).
Analogous art Mahajan discloses liquid chromatograph setting/environment and does not state elements of liquid chromatograph setting/environment such as a cleaning solution, cleaning solution is used, cleaning, in a liquid chromatograph capable of batch analysis, liquid chromatograph, batch processing in liquid chromatograph setting/environment, batches analyzed, and carryover (within liquid chromatograph setting/environment) (see Mahajan at ¶¶ 0006 [chromatography…cleaned…with the same product or with different product; see with 0109 [liquid chromatography], 0119 [chromatography material following any one of the cleaning procedure…carryover material (e.g., contaminants – a issue/problem), 0122 [cleaning…reduce carryover], 0304 [Cleaning can be performed with cost-effective reagents (solutions)], 0342-0343 [pooling/batching…cleaning agent/solution…cleaning solution…carryover…sample pools; see with 0355-0357 [batch processing; with 0304]]]; 0055 [discusses cost savings; with 0004 [reducing costs], 0304 [Cleaning can be performed with cost-effective reagents (solutions)]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Apacible liquid chromatograph setting/environment and does not state elements of liquid chromatograph setting/environment such as a cleaning solution, cleaning solution is used, cleaning, in a liquid chromatograph capable of batch analysis, liquid chromatograph, batch processing in liquid chromatograph setting/environment, batches analyzed, and carryover (within liquid chromatograph setting/environment) as taught by analogous art Mahajan in order to determine costs/expenses when changing/choosing materials so as to determine, in chromatography environment, profitability when comparing choosing/substituting material (determine profits based on cost, time, etc.,) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the chromatography environment (and it’s elements – solution/materials/etc.,) of Mahajan for the environment (and elements – resources/etc.,) of Apacible (where the focus of the claimed concept is determining costs and profitability what changing materials/resources type (different cleaning solution) in a liquid chromatograph working environment; where 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 – see note above) (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141(III)).
Apacible does disclose resources being cheap and/or expensive and discusses associated costs ((col. 5, lines 20-34 [storage resources may have different cost…storage resource 118 (first, etc.,) might be cheap…and storage resource 120 (second, etc.,) might be expensive…])) (also cost, cheaper product, and/or expensive resource/product as values from which profits are known to be calculated and distinguished depending on resource/product used/chosen).
However, neither Apacible nor Mahajan state profit.
Analogous art Papageorgiou (US 2020/0184401) discloses substituting one material with another for maximizing profits determined from costs and thus discusses profit or profit determination (¶¶ 0013 [ substituting a proposed purchase of a first raw material with the purchase of a second material…material valuation…comparing an optimal reference usage plan to an optimal updated usage plan…provide the maximum profit; with 0039-0049 [discusses profits while taking various costs into consideration]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Apacible in view of Mahajan profit or profit determination as taught by analogous art Papageorgiou in order to use the most efficient resource/material/liquid-solution in an environment (in this case liquid chromatograph) that will lower costs and save time (maximizing profits) use since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Papageorgiou (determining and maximizing profit with costs and time as factors is an old and well-known concept) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141(III)).
As per claim 1, claim 1 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 7 above; and therefore claim 1 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 7.
As per claim 2, Apacible discloses the calculation method for cost performance in an environment/project/work/etc., as recited in claim 1 (rejection in claim 7), wherein the first resource different from the possible original resource, and wherein the second resource is a resource having a composition different from that of the first and original resource (col. 2 lines 35-45 [different types of resources have different costs and capabilities…tape storage (resource 1) is cheap, but the latency time to retrieve the data from tape may be long…semiconductor memories (resource 2; different composition than resource 1 and 3 and also integrated withing computer or semiconductor environment/board) offer fast retrieval, but are expensive relative to the volume of data they can store…disks (resource 3; similar to resource 1 as both tape and disks are not integrated into semiconductor computing (can be portable and distinct from semiconductor environment)) have a cost and retrieval time that is somewhere between tape and semiconductor devices. And, for any given type of storage resource, there may be many different variations. For example, different kinds of disks or disk arrangements are often associated with different speeds and costs], col. 5, lines 14-20 [resources 118-122 may be specific devices….storage resource 118 might be a tape drive, and storage resource 120 might be a disk drive (or they might be computers that employ a tape drive and a disk drive, respectively, to store data (same computing unit))…storage resources 118-122 might be data centers]).
Apacible does not state liquid chromatograph; cleaning solution is a solution having the same composition as a separation solution used for sample separation; and cleaning solution is a solution having a composition different from that of the separation solution.
Analogous art Mahajan discloses liquid chromatograph cleaning solution is a solution having the same composition as a separation solution used for sample separation; and cleaning solution is a solution having a composition different from that of the separation solution (see Mahajan at ¶¶ 0006 [chromatography…cleaned…with the same product or with different product; see with 0109 [liquid chromatography], 0119 [chromatography material following any one of the cleaning procedure…carryover material (e.g., contaminants – a issue/problem), 0122 [cleaning…reduce carryover]], 0313-0320 [different cleaning agents/solutions investigated – where some have same chemical composition and others have different chemical composition; see with 0346 [table 8 – example of cleaning agent composition; which can be compared to the separation solutions in the specification (at 0313-0320, 0351-0360)]]; see also 0094-0099, 0055-0062).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Apacible liquid chromatograph cleaning solution is a solution having the same composition as a separation solution used for sample separation; and cleaning solution is a solution having a composition different from that of the separation solution as taught by analogous art Mahajan in order to determine how the solution work differently (time and cost) and determine costs/expenses when changing/choosing materials so as to determine, in chromatography environment, profitability when comparing choosing/substituting material (determine profits based on cost, time, etc.,) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G). (MPEP 2141(III)).
As per claim 3, Apacible discloses the calculation method for cost performance in an environment/project/work/etc.,, as recited in claim 1 (see claim 7 rejection), wherein each of the first period and the second period is a predetermined period set in advance, and wherein the second period is a period having the same length as the first period or a period longer than the first period (Apacible claims 8-9 [service level agreement determines an amount of time (for first, second, third, etc., - depending on service level agreement – also see col. 7, lines 3-24 [e.g. of cut-off time interval pre-determined for first, second, third, etc.,]) (predetermined period set in advance); see with claim 10 [a first amount of time…a second amount of time, said first amount of time being lower than said second amount of time (second period is longer than first period)]]).
Apacible does not state liquid chromatograph.
Analogous art Mahajan discloses liquid chromatograph (see Mahajan at ¶¶ 0006 [chromatography…cleaned…with the same product or with different product; see with 0109 [liquid chromatography]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Apacible liquid chromatograph as taught by analogous art Mahajan in order to determine how the solution work differently (time and cost) and determine costs/expenses when changing/choosing materials so as to determine, in chromatography environment, profitability when comparing choosing/substituting material (determine profits based on cost, time, etc.,) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of liquid chromatography of Mahajan for the environment of Apacible (where the focus of the claimed concept is determining costs and profitability what changing materials/resources type (different cleaning solution) in a liquid chromatograph working environment; where 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 – see note above) (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141(III)).
As per claim 5, Apacible discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising:
calculate a fourth period shortened during a second period in a case where a second resource is used in place of a third resource (col. 5, lines 20-34 [storage resources may have different cost and capability profiles…storage resource 118 (first, etc.,) might be cheap and slow, and storage resource 120 (second, etc.,) might be expensive and fast]),
based on an analysis time required for one-time analysis in a case where the third resource is used, in an environment/project/work/etc., capable of analysis of a group of units/ways/resources, a second time required for one-time a task/way/job/etc., (col. 2, lines 31-45 [different types of storage resources include disk, tape, and semiconductor devices…tape storage (one type of resource) is cheap, but the latency time to retrieve the data from tape may be long…semiconductor memories (another type of resource) offer fast retrieval, but are expensive relative to the volume of data they can store…disks (third type) have a cost and retrieval time that is somewhere between tape and semiconductor devices; see with col. 3, lines 22-55 [consult a storage choice component… parameters concerning the storage of data…set of rules (analysis)…to save costs…considerations…used to make an initial determination about where to store data]]),
in the environment/project/work/etc., the number of samples analyzed per group of units/ways, reanalysis/analysis rate, the number of calibrations/adjustments per group of types of units/ways/resources, (see citations above and also see col. 10, lines 12-51 [adjustments…made…distributing data across several storage resources (A, B, and C)…rules may be adjusted or tuned…learn…change performance over time…could adjust any parameters of the storage rules based on any observations about how the current storage is functioning]),
the number of group of units/ways/etc., analyzed during a first period, and a reanalysis rate that requires a reanalysis to confirm whether an issue has occurred (see citations above and also see col. 10, lines 12-51 [analysis and reanalysis is shown in practicality to see if bottleneck (issue) has occurred and what led to a bottleneck (issue) and then reanalysis is done to take action or mitigate – see with claim 17 [identify adjustments to be made to a way in which said data is stored; and based on the adjustments that are identified by said learning algorithm, migrating said data from a first one of said one or more storage resources to a second one of said one or more storage resources]]), and
calculate a third cost obtained during the second period in a case where the second resource is used instead of the third resource, based on the fourth period, the number of samples analyzed per group of units/ways/resources/etc., the number of units/ways/resources/etc., analyzed during the first period, and a first cost (see, for example, claim 20 [ finding that an increase in time to access said data is a detriment that is not offset by a reduced cost of storing said data in said first one of said one or more storage resources instead of in said second one of said one or more storage resources, said first one of said one or more storage resources providing faster retrieval of said data than said second one of said one or more storage resources, said first one of said one or more storage resources storing data for a lower cost than said second one of said one or more storage resources; see with col. 5, lines 20-34 [storage resources may have different cost and capability profiles…storage resource 118 (first, etc.,) might be cheap and slow, and storage resource 120 (second, etc.,) might be expensive and fast]]).
Apacible does not state profit/cost analysis done in liquid chromatograph setting/environment and does not state elements of liquid chromatograph setting/environment such as a cleaning solution, cleaning solution is used, cleaning, in a liquid chromatograph capable of batch analysis, liquid chromatograph, batch processing in liquid chromatograph setting/environment, batches analyzed, and carryover (within liquid chromatograph setting/environment) (the note above directed to Applicant’s claimed concept).
Analogous art Mahajan discloses liquid chromatograph setting/environment and does not state elements of liquid chromatograph setting/environment such as a cleaning solution, cleaning solution is used, cleaning, in a liquid chromatograph capable of batch analysis, liquid chromatograph, batch processing in liquid chromatograph setting/environment, batches analyzed, and carryover (within liquid chromatograph setting/environment) (see Mahajan at ¶¶ 0006 [chromatography…cleaned…with the same product or with different product; see with 0109 [liquid chromatography], 0119 [chromatography material following any one of the cleaning procedure…carryover material (e.g., contaminants – a issue/problem), 0122 [cleaning…reduce carryover], 0304 [Cleaning can be performed with cost-effective reagents (solutions)], 0342-0343 [pooling/batching…cleaning agent/solution…cleaning solution…carryover…sample pools; see with 0355-0357 [batch processing; with 0304]]]; 0055 [discusses cost savings; with 0004 [reducing costs], 0304 [Cleaning can be performed with cost-effective reagents (solutions)]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Apacible liquid chromatograph setting/environment and does not state elements of liquid chromatograph setting/environment such as a cleaning solution, cleaning solution is used, cleaning, in a liquid chromatograph capable of batch analysis, liquid chromatograph, batch processing in liquid chromatograph setting/environment, batches analyzed, and carryover (within liquid chromatograph setting/environment) as taught by analogous art Mahajan in order to determine costs/expenses when changing/choosing materials so as to determine, in chromatography environment, profitability when comparing choosing/substituting material (determine profits based on cost, time, etc.,) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the chromatography environment (and it’s elements – solution/materials/etc.,) of Mahajan for the environment (and elements – resources/etc.,) of Apacible (where the focus of the claimed concept is determining costs and profitability what changing materials/resources type (different cleaning solution) in a liquid chromatograph working environment; where 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 – see note above) (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141(III)).
Apacible does disclose resources being cheap and/or expensive and discusses associated costs ((col. 5, lines 20-34 [storage resources may have different cost…storage resource 118 (first, etc.,) might be cheap…and storage resource 120 (second, etc.,) might be expensive…])) (also cost, cheaper product, and/or expensive resource/product as values from which profits are known to be calculated and distinguished depending on resource/product used/chosen).
However, neither Apacible nor Mahajan state profit or profit determination.
Analogous art Papageorgiou (US 2020/0184401) discloses substituting one material with another for maximizing profits determined from costs and discloses profit or profit determination (¶¶ 0013 [ substituting a proposed purchase of a first raw material with the purchase of a second material…material valuation…comparing an optimal reference usage plan to an optimal updated usage plan…provide the maximum profit; with 0039-0049 [discusses profits while taking various costs into consideration]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Apacible in view of Mahajan profit or profit determination as taught by analogous art Papageorgiou in order to use the most efficient resource/material/liquid-solution in an environment (in this case liquid chromatograph) that will lower costs and save time (maximizing profits) use since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Papageorgiou (determining and maximizing profit with costs and time as factors is an old and well-known concept) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141(III)).
As per claim 6, Apacible in view of Mahajan, further in view of Papageorgiou discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a program which, when executed by a computer, makes the computer execute the calculation method for cost performance in a liquid chromatograph as claimed in claim 1 (see citations for claim 7 above (where claim 1 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 7 above); and also see Apacible at col. 11, lines 21-22 [instructions…stored on one or more computer-readable storage media]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), further in view of Wu et al., (US 11635751).
As per claim 4, Apacible discloses the calculation method for cost performance in an environment/project/work/etc., as recited in claim 3, but Apacible does not state liquid chromatograph.
Analogous art Mahajan discloses liquid chromatograph (see Mahajan at ¶¶ 0006 [chromatography…cleaned…with the same product or with different product; see with 0109 [liquid chromatography]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Apacible liquid chromatograph as taught by analogous art Mahajan in order to determine how the solution work differently (time and cost) and determine costs/expenses when changing/choosing materials so as to determine, in chromatography environment, profitability when comparing choosing/substituting material (determine profits based on cost, time, etc.,) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of liquid chromatography of Mahajan for the environment of Apacible (where the focus of the claimed concept is determining costs and profitability what changing materials/resources type (different cleaning solution) in a liquid chromatograph working environment; where 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 – see note above) (KSR-B). (MPEP 2141(III)).
Neither Apacible nor Mahajan nor Papageorgiou explicitly state wherein the first period is one week, and wherein the second period is one year.
Analogous art Wu (resource management in a work/project environment) discloses wherein the first period is one week, and wherein the second period is one year (col. 64, lines 14-15 [set…time step (period) of one week], col. 76, lines 13-14 [time horizon (period) set to one year]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Apacible in view of Mahajan in view of Papageorgiou first period is one week, and wherein the second period is one year as taught by analogous art Wu in order to determine term length performance results to make optimal decisions (on what gives the best profit based on periodic costs and processing times) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Wu (setting periodic profitability analysis for one week and/or one year is and old and well-known abstract concept for making profit based decisions) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141(III)).
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.
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