DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 10/9/2025.
Claims 31-35 are new.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14-20, 26, 28, 29, and 31-35 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14-20, 26, 28, 29, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, “and” should be inserted before “user information” at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14-20, 26, 28, 29 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are analyzed using a two step process to determine whether they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. In step 1, Examiner must determine whether the claims belong to one of the statutory categories. In step 2A-1, Examiner must determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception. In step 2A-2, Examiner must determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In step 2B, Examiner must determine whether the claims recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For step 2A-1, Claim 1 is directed to an empirical data management system (EDMS) comprising: (A) an application server running an EDMS server application, (B) a process instrument in communication with the application server, wherein the process instrument is selected from the group consisting of laboratory equipment and manufacturing equipment, wherein the processing instrument is configured to determine process data from a step in an experimental or manufacturing process; (C) an environmental sensor unit in communication with the application server, wherein the environmental sensor unit is configured to determine environmental data describing an environmental condition of the process instrument; (D) a data storage system in communication with the application server, wherein the data storage system comprises specified environmental operating ranges of the process instrument and an aggregated data file, (E) wherein the aggregated data file comprises aggregated data file entries each having a common hierarchal data format comprising a process data level containing process data received by the application server from the process instrument and a metadata level containing environmental data received by the application server from the environmental sensor unit describing an environmental condition of the process instrument (F) wherein the EDMS server application comprises: an aggregated data file entry creation module in communication with the application server and programmed with instructions and logic executable by the application server for creating an aggregated data file entry having the common hierarchical data format by appending environmental data received by the application server from the process instrument in the process data level and storing the aggregated data file in the data storage system; (G) a correlation module in communication with the application server and programmed with instructions and logic executable by the application server: to retrieve the specified environmental operating ranges of the process instrument stored in the data storage system and the aggregated data file stored in the data storage system, to retrieve the environmental data stored in the metadata level of the aggregated data file entries, and to compare the specified environmental operating ranges of the process instrument retrieved from the data storage system and the environmental data retrieved from the metadata level of the aggregated data file entries to determine if a correlation exists, wherein the correlation is whether or not the environmental data retrieved from the metadata level of the aggregated data file entries is within the specified environmental operating ranges of the process instrument retrieved from the data storage system, wherein upon determination of existence of the correlation, the correlation module is programmed with instructions and logic executable by the application server to prompt a user with a message warning the user that the environmental data is not within the specified environmental operating ranges of the process equipment.
As such, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of gathering information, analyzing the information to make a determination, and producing a result of the analysis and determination, which is a mental process because the steps involve concepts which can be performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper, or with the aid of a computer as a tool to perform the concepts. Here, limitations (B) and (C) recite elements directed to data gathering. Limitation (B) is directed to a process instrument configured to determine process data (i.e., gather data in an experimental or manufacturing process). Limitation (C) is directed to an environmental sensor unit configured to determine environmental data (i.e., gather environmental data). Limitation (D) is directed to a data storage system for storing the gathered environmental data in an aggregated data file. Limitation (E) is directed to the structure of the aggregated data file and where data is received for populating the portions of the aggregated data file. Limitation (F) is directed to an aggregated data file creation module for creating the aggregated data file by appending environmental data as metadata to process data. Limitations (D) and (F), thus also describe elements directed to data gathering and storing the gathered data. Limitation (G) is directed to a correlation module for comparing environmental operating ranges and the environmental data from the aggregated data file to determine if there is a correlation to prompt the user with a warning message. Limitation (G) is also directed to an abstract idea categorized as a mental process because it recites limitations directed to evaluation and judgment of the gathered data. Lastly, Limitation (A) is directed to a computer component recited at a high level of generality, which does not negate the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized as a mental process.
For step 2A-2, for much of the same reasons described above, claim 1 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation (A) is directed to computer component limitations are recited at a high level of generality and does not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Similarly, limitations (B), (C), (D), (F), and (G) are directed to data gathering and data analysis elements corresponding to generic elements, such as those described in the specification. For example, pgs. 14 and 33-34 of the specification describes an EDMS as an ELN or an aggregate data system including the application server and data storage system, aggregated data file creation, and correlation module. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the environmental sensor unit and the process instrument includes generic sensors and instruments. None of the limitations recite elements meaningfully limited components beyond the generic components described in the specification and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations. In regards to limitation (E), the aggregated data file structure comprising entries having a hierarchical data format, is described by Applicant’s specification as a structure found in the prior art (i.e., known) and its use in ELNs which have the ability to collect data automatically. Specification at pgs. 2-3. Claim 1 does not recite additional limitations that improve the functioning of the computer or technology, that implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture, or apply the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment. The data gathering elements are further merely extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g). None of the recited elements, either individually or in combination, recite meaningful limitations that adequately convey how the recited system improves upon the technology and associated computer systems. For at least these reasons, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For step 2B, for much of the same reasons discussed above, the limitations recited in claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s specification further describes the instruments and sensors (data gathering elements) as being well known in the art. Specification at 15, 33-34. The data storage, aggregated file creation module, and correlation module are recited at a high level, which do not place meaningful limits on the abstract idea that would amount to significantly more. As a result, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Claim 2 recites the additional limitations of (A) an instrument control unit (ICU) in communication with the application server and either or both the environmental sensor and/or the process instrument, wherein the ICU comprises logic and instructions to receive the messages sent by the application server to provide the message to the user, (B) wherein the ICU is an instrument interface unit (IIU) programmed with instructions and logic executable by the IIU for establishing a controlled process workflow by a user and for establishing by the IIU a controlled flow of data between the application server and either or both the process instrument and/or the environmental sensor unit, (C) wherein the IIU comprises one or more pieces of hardware selected from the group consisting of: a display, barcode scanner, RFID scanner, NFC reader, QR code scanner, speaker, microphone, non-contact gesture sensor, secure payment interface, and camera, and (D) wherein the one or more pieces of hardware are configured to receive data input by the user. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, for the same reasons as explained with regards to claim 1 above. Limitations (A), (B), and (C) are all directed to a well-known element as described by Applicant at pgs. 15-16 of the specification. Limitation (D) is directed to a step of mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity. Any computer components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea. For these reasons, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 6 recites the additional element of wherein the specified environmental operating ranges of the process instrument include ranges of environmental variables selected from the group consisting of: temperature, humidity, light sensitivity, light wavelengths, vibration, gas concentration, air pressure, volatile organic compounds (VOC) concentration, particulate level, air pollution level, calibration information, user interface, and equipment use information. For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 6 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recites examples of environmental data, which by themselves do not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea and at best, further describe the field of use and technological environment. For at least these reasons, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 9 recites the additional element of wherein the correlation module is programmed with instructions and logic executable by the application server such that the correlation determination is performed by the application server by statistical analysis and/or statistical comparison of environmental data and specified environmental operating ranges of the process instrument. For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 9 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recites instructions to apply an exception. Here, the exception is mental process of applying a mathematical algorithm to perform evaluation and judgment on the gathered data. For at least these reasons, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 10 recites the additional element of a client workstation running an EDMS client application in communication with the application server, wherein upon determination of existence of the correlation by the application server, the correlation module is programmed with instructions and logic executable by the application server to prompt a user using the client workstation with the messages. For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 10 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recites a computer component of a client workstation for interacting with the server. The client workstation is recited at a high level of generality that does not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea and at best, merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For at least these reasons, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 11 recites the additional element of wherein the environmental data stored in a metadata level of a respective aggregated data file entry is environmental data relating to the environmental condition of the process instrument at or about the time the process data in the process data level of the respective aggregated data file entry was determined by the process instrument. For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 11 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recites storing the gathered data as metadata. The sensors gathering data are generic instruments as discussed above. The step of storing the gathered data is merely insignificant extra solution activity as recited, as it is utilizing existing data structure and ELNs without adding additional features that would demonstrate an improvement. For at least these reasons, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 12 recites the additional element of wherein the data stored by the application server in the metadata level of the aggregated data file entries further comprises data types selected from the group consisting of project data, experiment data, object data, user data, inventory data, maintenance data, and usage data. For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 12 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recites types of data that do not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea and at best, amount to nothing more than generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field. For at least these reasons, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 14 recites the additional element of wherein the EDMS comprises an Electronic Laboratory Notebook (ELN) system or a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 14 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recite generic systems that are well-known, as described in the specification at pg. 1-3. For at least these reasons, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 15 recites the additional element of wherein upon determination of existence of the correlation by the application server, the correlation module is programmed with instructions and logic executable by the application server to prompt a user a further message selected from the group consisting of i. a recommendation to modify the process data; ii. a recommendation to calculate a correction or offset factor for the process data; iii. a recommendation to modify a result of the experimental or manufacturing process which uses the process instrument; iv. a recommendation to abandon the experimental or manufacturing process which uses the process instrument; v. recommendation to modify a step in the experimental or manufacturing process which uses the process instrument; and a (vi) a query regarding whether the user would like to continue the experimental or manufacturing process; and a further message to perform the recommended action and/or an instruction on how to perform the recommended action. For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 15 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recites a step of prompting a user with a message without any specific limitations on how that is performed. At best, the additional elements are directed to insignificant extra solution activity of displaying a message. For at least these reasons, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites essentially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends on claim 16 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 17 recites the additional element of receiving by the application server input from a user with respect to the messages prompted in step (d). For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 17 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recites insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering by receiving input from a user. For at least these reasons, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 18-20
Claims 18-20 depend on claim 16 and are directed to the same abstract idea. Claims 18-20 recite the same limitations as claims 6, 11, and 15, respectively. Therefore, they are also rejected for the same respective reasons.
Claim 26
Claim 26 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 26 recites the additional element of wherein the process instrument is configured to measure process data including mass and/or volume of a sample for use in a step of an experimental or manufacturing process. For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 26 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recites generic components as discussed with regards to claim 1 above. For at least these reasons, claim 26 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 28
Claim 28 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 28 recites the additional elements of (A) a user interface and (B) the EDMS server application comprises instructions and logic performable by the application server to: retrieve the specified environmental operating ranges of the process instrument stored in the data storage system and the aggregated data file stored in the data storage system; (C) retrieve the environmental data stored in the metadata level of the aggregated data file entries in the aggregated data file stored in the data storage system; and (D) retrieve the process data stored in the process data level of the aggregated data file entries in the aggregated data file stored in the data storage system, and (E) display on the user interface the retrieved: specified environmental operating ranges of the process instrument; the environmental data; and the process data. For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 1 above, claim 28 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional elements (B) through (D) recite retrieving data from storage, which are insignificant extra solution activity. Elements (A) and (E) are directed to computer components recited at a high level of generality without meaningful limits on the abstract idea. The user interface merely displays the retrieved data without doing so in a specific way that provides meaningful limits on the abstract idea to improve the user interface. The display is merely a component recited at a high level of generality performing generic functionality of a display. For at least these reasons, claim 28 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 29
Claim 29 depends on claim 28 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 29 recites the additional element of wherein the EDMS server application comprises instructions and logic executable by the application server to display the determination of correlation and the messages to the user and to receive input from the user. For much of the reasons discussed with regards to claim 28 above, claim 29 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The additional element here merely recites insignificant extra solution activity of displaying data and receiving input (i.e., data gathering). For at least these reasons, claim 29 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 31
Claim 31 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 31 recites the additional element of wherein upon determination of existence of the correlation, the correlation module and/or application server is programmed with logic and instructions to perform, by the application server, the steps of: modifying the process data received from the process instrument and storing the modified process data in the data storage system. The additional limitations describe a mental step of data modification and an IESA step of storing data. The additional limitations do not sufficiently demonstrate an asserted improvement and therefore, cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations do not specifically recite how the process data is modified or how the modified process data is stored, beyond simple instructions to do so. For these reasons, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For much of the reasons discussed, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The mental step of modification lacks sufficient specificity to provide an inventive step and the IESA of storing the modified data is well understood, routine, and conventional. For at least these reasons, claim 31 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 32
Claim 32 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 32 recites the additional element of wherein upon determination of existence of the correlation, the correlation module and/or application server is programmed with logic and instructions to perform, by the application server, the steps of: calculating a correction or offset factor for the process data received from the process instrument, modifying the process data with the correction factor, and storing the modified process data in the data storage system. The additional limitations describe a mathematical calculation, a mental step of data modification, and an IESA step of storing data. The additional limitations do not sufficiently demonstrate an asserted improvement and therefore, cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations do not specifically recite how the correction or offset factor is calculated, how the process data is modified with the correction factor, nor how the modified process data is stored, beyond simple instructions to do so. For these reasons, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For much of the reasons discussed, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The mathematical step, which can be performed mentally, and the mental step of modification lack sufficient specificity to provide inventive steps. The IESA of storing the modified data is well understood, routine, and conventional and cannot provide an inventive step. For at least these reasons, claim 32 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 33
Claim 33 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 33 recites the additional element of wherein upon determination of existence of the correlation, the correlation module and/or application server is programmed with logic and instructions to perform, by the application server, the steps of: modifying a step, a run, or a protocol in the experimental or manufacturing process using the process equipment. The additional limitations describe a mental step of data modification, where the data is a step, a run or a protocol. The additional limitations do not sufficiently demonstrate an asserted improvement and therefore, cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations do not specifically recite how any of the step, run, or protocol are modified, beyond simple instructions to do so. For these reasons, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For much of the reasons discussed, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The mental step of modification lacks sufficient specificity to provide an inventive step. For at least these reasons, claim 33 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 34
Claim 34 depends on claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 34 recites the additional element of wherein upon determination of existence of the correlation, the correlation module and/or application server is programmed with logic and instructions to perform, by the application server, the step of: terminating a step in the experimental or manufacturing process using the process equipment. The additional limitations describe a mental step of data modification in the form of deleting a step from the process. The additional limitations do not sufficiently demonstrate an asserted improvement and therefore, cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations do not specifically recite how a step is terminated, beyond simple instructions to do so. For these reasons, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For much of the reasons discussed, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The mental step of terminating a step lacks sufficient specificity to provide an inventive step. For at least these reasons, claim 34 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 35 is essentially the same subject matter as the combination of claims 31-34 in the form of a method. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
For the reasons explained above, claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14-20, 26, 28, 29, and 31-35 are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of invention.
Response to Amendment
Objection to claim 12 for Minor Informalities
Applicant’s amendment to claim 12 to address the minor informalities is acknowledged. Consequently, the objection to claim 12 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14-20, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14-20, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant alleges and argues (1) the claim reflect a technical improvement and specifically recites the advancements and improvements to EDMSs within the body of the claims including receiving and combining both process data and environmental data from disparate flows/networks in a single file and in the structure that was never existed before, such as, a new type/class of metadata that now includes environmental data from a separate environmental sensor/network (Remarks at 10) and (2) the claims recite specific actions taken as a result of determination of the correlation, which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (Remarks at 11-12).
In regards to Applicant’s argument (1), Applicant argues the claims reflect a technical improvement because metadata attached to process data of the past never included a type or class of metadata containing environmental data describing an environmental condition of the process equipment. Remarks at 10. Applicant reasons this is because environmental data describing an environmental condition of the process equipment is from sensors that are separate from and/or peripheral to the process equipment data flow. Remarks at 10. Applicant’s citations to the specifications are acknowledged. However, as noted in the Board decision rendered 2/23/2024, the components of the system are described by the specification as “well-known” and with instruments and sensors being not particularly limited. Decision at 15-16, 19. In particular, the specification at page 15 describes instrument interfacing modules (IIM), which are equipment that can be utilized to control the flow of data between measurement instruments (e.g., a process instrument) and sensors and to any or all of the LN servers, LIMS servers, sensor servers, etc. The specification further describes IIMs as “well-known in the art and allow a user or technician to interface with above noted servers, databases, and/or work stations and process equipment … to automate laboratory and/or manufacturing process workflows and data collection.” Spec at pg. 15. In other words, IIMs are well known and used in the art to bridge the gap between various hardware for data collection, such as between process equipment and environmental sensors, and storing the collected data in an ELN or LIMS server. Applicant’s specification states “ELNs can collect metadata automatically” and “commonly give ready access to metadata … potentially leading to situation where ELNs offer much richer contextual data.” Additionally, the specification also states “[m]etadata is attached to data, often in a file hierarchy, as data is moved from the instrument that generated it, through the file where it is stored.” Moreover, the specification points to Fig. 1, which shows essentially the hierarchical structure, which Applicant claims as being “new”, and discusses it as an example of file structures that support metadata in ELNs. Spec at pg. 3. In conclusion, the specification describes ELNs, which can automatically collect metadata from instruments (such as environmental sensors associated with process instruments) to give context and meaning to collected data and store the metadata with the collected data, in a hierarchical structure, which is the “aggregated data file comprising aggregated data file entries … having a common hierarchical data format” as claimed. The underlying file data structure is not changed from existing technologies, as described by Applicant’s specification. Accordingly, merely changing the type of metadata being stored cannot be seen as an improvement to the technological field. Therefore, the claims merely recites generic and well known components, which do not adequately demonstrate an improvement to the technological field that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are consistent with examples 37-42 and 42-47 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable subject matter without explaining how the examples are consistent with the recited claim limitations.
In regards to Applicant’s argument (2), Applicant argues claims 1, 15, 20, and 31-35 recite specific actions that provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea integrating it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Remarks at 10. These specific actions include prompting a user with a particular message, making modifications to process data, steps, runs, and protocols, calculating a factor, storing modified process data, and terminating a step from the manufacturing or experimental process. As explained in the rejections above, these particular actions are either directed to insignificant extra solution activity, such as prompting a user with a particular message and storing modified process data, or they are directed to mental steps that are recited with insufficient specificity that would adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For the same reasons, these recited actions also do not provide an inventive step and cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Once again, in response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are consistent with Examples 37-42 and 42-47 of the SME guidelines, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable subject matter without explaining how the examples are consistent with the recited claim limitations.
For at least these reasons, claims 1, 15, 20, and 31-35 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant does not address any of the remaining claims. Therefore, they remain rejected for at least the same reasons as explained above.
Consequently, the rejection to claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14-20, 26, 28, 29, and 31-35 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Cannon (US Patent Pub 2018/0320127) discloses a system and method using an incubator operation, which utilizes LIMS and ELN.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163