DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to communications: Amendments filed on 11/19/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are independent.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frohlich et al. (US2007/0208800) in view of Koblick et al. (US2020/0111578) and LabWiki (“Repeatable Experiments with LabWiki”) and Smiley et al. (US2005/0096874) and Hite et al. (US2020/0073935).
In regards to claim 1, Frohlich et al. a method performed by a computing device, comprising:
generating a template associated with a type of test conducted in a testing environment (Frohlich et al. para[0052] ln1-5 [0053] ln7-12, selects template based on type of experiment to be conducted);
parsing the data included in the group of fields to identify a sample-based provenance and a time-based provenance associated with the test (Frohlich et al. fig. 9a para[0099] ln1-8 [0100] ln1-5, identifies information corresponding to provenance of data);
updating at least one of the time-based provenance or the sample-based provenance based on the data in the group of fields (Frohlich et al. fig. 9a para[0099] ln8-11 [0100]ln7-15, updates provenance (object hash code) based on identified information).
Frohlich et al. does not explicitly disclose generating an inference at a machine learning model based on at least one of the time-based provenance or the sample-based provenance.
However Koblick substantially discloses generating an inference at a machine learning model based on at least one of the time-based provenance and the sample-based provenance (Koblick et al. para[0128] ln11-19, [0129] ln1-7, generates inference base on time-based provenance (time-stamp)); and
updating the template based on the inference (Koblick et al. para[0230] ln7-19, updates template based on inference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the laboratory notebook of Frohlich et al. with the clinical guidance system of Koblick et al. in order to identify patterns in large data sets (Koblick et al. para[0004] ln7-12).
Frohlich et al. does not explicitly disclose the template including a group of fields corresponding to the type of test and one or more parameters associated with the test;
updating, after performing the test, the group of fields to include data associated with the test, the data including one or more of test results, test notes, or variables associated with the test;
updating one or more instrument setting at an instrument used to perform the test, such the instrument uses the one or more updated instrument settings at a subsequent performance of the test, the one or more updated instrument settings being updated via wireless communication between the computing device and the instrument; and
updating the one or more parameters included in the template based on the inference indicating that the test failed, such that the subsequent performance of the test is in accordance with the one or more updated parameters, .
However LabWiki substantially discloses the template including a group of fields corresponding to the type of test and one or more parameters associated with the test (LabWiki pg6 section 6.1 para1, experimenter defines configurations and parameters for experiment);
updating, after performing the test, the group of fields to include data associated with the test, the data including one or more of test results, test notes, or variables associated with the test (LabWiki pg8 section6.2.1 para3, updates fields with information about collected measurements);
updating, based on the inference, one or more instrument setting at an instrument used to perform the test, such the instrument uses the one or more updated instrument settings at a subsequent performance of the test, the one or more updated instrument settings being updated via wireless communication between the computing device and the instrument (LabWiki pg6 6.1 para1, updates settings and parameters of experiments in response to events, pg10 section7.1 para4, updates instruments through wireless communication); and
updating the one or more parameters included in the template based on the inference, such that the subsequent performance of the test is in accordance with the one or more updated parameters (LabWiki pg11 section8.1 para1, modifies configuration of experiment for each trial).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the laboratory notebook of Frohlich et al. with the clinical guidance system of Koblick et al. and the repeatable experiments of LabWiki in order to track each step of an experiment-based study and capture information necessary to modify and repeat prior experiments (LabWiki pg1 abstract).
Frohlich et al. does not explicitly disclose the inference indicating whether the test succeeded or failed;
updating, via the machine learning model one or more hardware instrument setting at a hardware instrument used to perform the test to yield a successful result based on the inference indicating the test failed, such that the hardware instrument uses the one or more updated hardware instrument settings at a subsequent performance of the test, the updates to the one or more instrument settings being associated with historical data of one or more previously successful tests;
the subsequent performance of the test being a repetition of the test.
However Smiley et al. substantially discloses the inference indicating whether the test succeeded or failed (Smiley et al. para[0062], determines if test result is a passing test result or a failing test result by comparing the test result to a predefined threshold);
updating, via the machine learning model one or more hardware instrument setting at a hardware instrument used to perform the test to yield a successful result based on the inference indicating the test failed, such that the hardware instrument uses the one or more updated hardware instrument settings at a subsequent performance of the test, the updates to the one or more instrument settings being associated with historical data of one or more previously successful tests (Smiley et al. para[0064], determines a suggested course of action for the test failure based on the test results. The suggested course of action may be to recalibrate a piece of manufacturing equipment, to sharpen the blades on a piece of manufacturing equipment, the adjust the humidity in the manufacturing environment);
the subsequent performance of the test being a repetition of the test (Smiley et al. fig. 5 para[0068], returns to 510 where method receives test results of subsequent test).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the laboratory notebook of Frohlich et al. with the troubleshooting method of Smiley et al. in order to identify a root cause and a course of action for a test failure (Smiley et al. para[0008]).
Frohlich et al. does not explicitly disclose a sample-based provenance comprising information linking a test sample to its associated synthesis conditions, characterization results, and measurement data, and
A time-based provenance comprising information defining an order of test steps associated with the test, the sample based provenance and the time-based provenance being stored in a structured format accessible by a machine learning model for generating an inference on an outcome of the test.
However Hite et al. substantially discloses a sample-based provenance comprising information linking a test sample to its associated synthesis conditions, characterization results, and measurement data (Hite et al. fig. 2 para[0023], extracts keywords and phrases related to ingredients, cooking methods, time, nutrition and flavor), and
A time-based provenance comprising information defining an order of test steps associated with the test, the sample based provenance and the time-based provenance being stored in a structured format accessible by a machine learning model for generating an inference on an outcome of the test (Hite et al. fig. 2 para[0024], infer information as to potential ingredient additions based on an initial set of information as well as cognitive assistance component may be further extended to vary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the laboratory notebook of Frohlich et al. with the method of generating instructions of Hite et al. in order to identify possible changes to the procedure (Hite et al. para[0003]).
In regards to claim 2, Frohlich et al. as modified by Koblick et al., LabWiki, Smiley et al., and Hite et al. discloses the method of claim 1, in which:
The group of fields includes at least one a first field for numerical data corresponding to the test, a second field for handwritten notes corresponding to the test, or a combination thereof (Frohlich et al. para[0066] ln1-4); and
the handwritten notes are received via an input to a touchscreen of the computing device (Koblick para[0262] ln1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the laboratory notebook of Frohlich et al. with the clinical guidance system of Koblick et al. in order to identify patterns in large data sets (Koblick et al. para[0004] ln7-12).
In regards to claim 3, Frohlich et al. as modified by Koblick et al., LabWiki, Smiley et al., and Hite et al. discloses the method of claim 1, in which:
a first field in the group of fields includes the one or more instrument settings (Frohlich et al. para[0041] ln4-10);
a second field in the group of fields includes ambient condition information from an ambient condition sensor in the testing environment (Frohlich et al. para[0041] ln10-19).
In regards to claim 4, Frohlich et al. as modified by Koblick et al., LabWiki, Smiley et al., and Hite et al. discloses the method of claim 3, in which one or more parameters are updated based on the time-based provenance, the sample-based provenance, and the ambient condition information (Frohlich et al. para[0080] ln1-5, [0081] ln1-4).
In regards to claim 5, Frohlich et al. as modified by Koblick et al., LabWiki, Smiley et al., and Hite et al. discloses the method of claim 1, in which: the inference indicates whether the test succeeded or failed based on the parsed data and the sample-based provenance, and
the method further comprises updating the template, based on the inference, to indicate at least one change to a procedure of the test when the test failed (Frohlich et al. para[0108] ln5-9).
In regards to claim 6, Frohlich et al. as modified by Koblick et al., LabWiki, Smiley et al., and Hite et al. discloses the method of claim 1, in which:
the inference identifies a relationship between the test and another test based on a comparison of a topic model and at least one of the parsed data, the sample-based provenance, the time-based provenance, or a combination thereof (Koblick et al. para[0148] ln7-15); and
the topic model is generated during a training phase of the machine learning model (Koblick et al. para[0140] ln11-18);
the method further comprising updating the template, based on the inference, to indicate the identified relationship (Koblick et al. para[0148] ln32-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the laboratory notebook of Frohlich et al. with the clinical guidance system of Koblick et al. in order to identify patterns in large data sets (Koblick et al. para[0004] ln7-12).
In regards to claim 7, Frohlich et al. as modified by Koblick et al., LabWiki, Smiley et al., and Hite et al. discloses the method of claim 1, in which:
One or more of the one or more parameters are associated with the one or more instrument settings (LabWiki pg6 section6.1 para1);
the method further comprises identifying the update to the one or more instrument settings based on the sample-based provenance (LabWiki pg12 section8.4 para1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the laboratory notebook of Frohlich et al. with the clinical guidance system of Koblick et al. and the repeatable experiments of LabWiki in order to track each step of an experiment-based study and capture information necessary to modify and repeat prior experiments (LabWiki pg1 abstract).
In regards to claim 8, Frohlich et al. as modified by Koblick et al., LabWiki, Smiley et al., and Hite et al. discloses the method of claim 1, in which the inference identifies a number of repeats for the test to obtain an effect based on a variance, the time-based provenance, and the sample-based provenance, and the method further comprises:
updating the template, based on the inference, to indicate the number of repeats (Koblick et al. para[0271] ln1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the laboratory notebook of Frohlich et al. with the clinical guidance system of Koblick et al. in order to identify patterns in large data sets (Koblick et al. para[0004] ln7-12).
In regards to claim 9, Frohlich et al. as modified by Koblick et al., LabWiki, Smiley et al., and Hite et al. discloses the method of claim 1, in which the inference predicts the subsequent test based on the time-based provenance, and the method further comprises updating the template, based on the inference, to indicate the subsequent test (Koblick et al. para[0195] ln6-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the laboratory notebook of Frohlich et al. with the clinical guidance system of Koblick et al. in order to identify patterns in large data sets (Koblick et al. para[0004] ln7-12).
In regards to claim 10, Frohlich et al. as modified by Koblick et al., LabWiki, Smiley et al., and Hite et al. discloses the method of claim 1, in which the inference determines the data should be shared with a collaborator in the testing environment, and the method further comprises updating the template, based on the inference, to indicate the data should be shared (Frohlich et al. para[0118] ln1-9).
Claims 11 -19 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-9. Thus claims 11-19 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 1-9.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1. Thus claim 20 is rejected along the same rationale as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply the current rejection.
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 NICHOLAS HASTY whose telephone number is (571)270-7775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2141
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights