DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/25 has been entered, in which Applicant amended claims 1 and 9. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claim 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are maintained in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
The 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are maintained in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 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. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 9, 10, and 12-15) and "system" (claims 1, 2, and 4-8).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
a person-in-charge schedule management table that registers a schedule of a laboratory technician working in the clinical laboratory, and an alarm handling stop position management table that registers information on a stop position where the laboratory technician who handles the alarm stops prior to a device that generates the alarm in order to handle the alarm generated from the plurality of analyzers or the management device;
…
determine an alarm notification priority order of the laboratory technicians to which the generated alarm is to be notified based on information on a task currently being performed by the laboratory technicians in the clinical laboratory, which is obtained from the person in-charge schedule management table, and position information based on a distance between the stop position indicating a position where the laboratory technician who handles the generated alarm stops prior to the device that generated the generated alarm, which is identified from the alarm information management table and the alarm handling stop position management table
and a current position of the laboratory technician in the clinical laboratory, notify the terminal of the laboratory technician having the highest priority according to the alarm notification priority order of the generated alarm.
Independent claim 9 recites substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, and 12-15 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1, and 18 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- 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 social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
"Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" as the limitations identified above include mere data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, e.g. including presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm, which is capable of being performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
“a communication interface that is communicatively coupled to the plurality of analysis devices, the plurality of terminals, and the position information acquisition device (claims 1 and 9); " the terminal of the laboratory technician as a person-in-charge who handles the generated alarm receive an input of a comment on handling the generated alarm" (claims 5) however the aforementioned elements directed to the receiving of user input/selection of data to view via a terminal and displaying corresponding data via the terminal merely amount to generic GUI elements of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea of presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm to a particular field of use/technological environment of a GUI dashboard (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore the GUI dashboard input and display of data fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" An automatic analysis system comprising: a plurality of analyzers disposed in a clinical laboratory to analyze or pre-process a sample; a plurality of terminals, each of which is held by a respective laboratory technician among a plurality of laboratory technicians working in the clinical laboratory, a position information acquisition device configured to acquire position information of the laboratory technicians, and a management device configured to manage the plurality of analyzers, wherein the management device includes: a storage device configured to… an information processing device coupled to the communication interface and the storage device, configured to," (claims 1 and 9) however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "analysis system" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
Step 2B: Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm using a "analysis system" via a GUI "terminal", as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0007249 to Eryurek et al. (hereafter referred to as Eryurek) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0061693 to Sasaki et al. (hereafter referred to as Sasaki) and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0161443 to Bassham et al. (hereafter referred to as Bassham).
As per claim 1, Eryurek teaches:
An automatic analysis system comprising: a plurality of analyzers disposed in a clinical laboratory to analyze or pre-process a sample; a plurality of terminals, each of which is held by a respective laboratory technician among a plurality of laboratory technicians working in the clinical laboratory, ... and a management device configured to manage the plurality of analyzers, wherein the management device includes: a storage device configured to (Paragraph Number [0184] teaches the elements described herein may be implemented in a standard multi purpose CPU or on specifically designed hardware or firmware such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or other hard wired device as desired. When implemented in software, the software routine may be stored in any computer readable memory such as on a magnetic disk, a laser disk, or other storage medium, in a RAM or ROM of a computer or processor, in any database, etc. Paragraph Number [0066] teaches the illustrated process control plant 10 also includes various rotating equipment 20, such as turbines, motors, etc. which are connected to a maintenance computer 22 via some permanent or temporary communication link (such as a bus, a wireless communication system or hand held devices which are connected to the equipment 20 to take readings and are then removed). Paragraph Number [0027] teaches maintenance personnel who are primarily responsible for assuring that the actual equipment within the process is operating efficiently and for repairing and replacing malfunctioning equipment, use tools such as maintenance interfaces, the AMS application discussed above, as well and many other diagnostic tools which provide information about operating states of the devices within the process).
store an alarm information management table (Paragraph Number [0019] teaches the non-standard nature of HART device status conditions and alarms or alerts combined with the numerous types of alarm or alert conditions that can be reported by Fieldbus devices, which are typically different from the conditions that are reported by HART devices, has complicated the integration of device alerts or alarms with the business systems that are typically used by a business enterprise in connection with the operation of one or more process control plants. Paragraph Number [0218] teaches some or all of the Fieldbus devices 1032-1039 may include three independently reportable device alarm or alert categories that have not previously been used in connection with Fieldbus devices. Generally speaking, each of these independently reportable alarm categories may correspond to a different level of severity and, thus, alarms or alerts within each category may require a different type of response by the system user or operator. (See Paragraph Number [0184] in regard to use of storage devices)).
a person-in-charge schedule management table that registers a schedule of a laboratory technician working in the clinical laboratory (Paragraph Number [0079] teaches The asset utilization suite 50 can also provide maintenance data (such as device status information) and business data (such as data associated with scheduled orders, timeframes, etc.) to a control expert 52 associated with, for example, the process control system 14 to help an operator perform control activities such as optimizing control. The control expert 52 may be located in, for example, the user interface 14A or any other computer associated with the control system 14 or within the computer 30 if desired. Paragraph Number [0232] teaches To facilitate the integrated monitoring, processing and display of alerts or alarms associated with the status conditions reported by the HART devices 1028-1031 and the alerts or alarms reported by the Fieldbus devices 1032-1039 via the independently reportable alarms parameters described herein, the alarm processing software 1050 maps or categorizes HART compliant status information to alert or alarm categories that are consistent with the independently reportable alarm parameters FAILED_ALM, MAINT_ALM and ADVISE_ALM).
and an alarm handling stop position management table that registers information on a stop position where the laboratory technician who handles the alarm stops prior to a device that generates the alarm in order to handle the alarm generated from the plurality of analyzers or the management device (Paragraph Number [0240] teaches the operator can customize the manner in which alarms are displayed based on the categories or types of alarms that the user is most interested in, which may all be one category or type of alarm such as process alarms, device alarms, hardware alarms or any combination of two or more categories of alarms. Further, the user may configure the display of alarms so that alarms or alerts of different severities may or may not be displayed. For example, the user may want to view only alarms or alerts contained within FAILED_ALM and MAINT_ALM parameters and may not want to view alarms or alerts contained within ADVISE_ALM parameters. More generally, the system operator or user may configure the display of alarms to view alerts or alarms associated with a device failure, a device needing maintenance, and/or an advisable action in connection with a device. The user may also have control over how the alarms are presented and the information provided with the alarms. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 enables a single person to perform the operations of an operator, a technician or maintenance person, and an engineer by viewing and addressing on the same screen the alarms that would normally be addressed by different personnel at different locations in a plant. Alternatively, at different times in the same system a maintenance person can use the same system to view only maintenance alarms while an engineer can view other types of alarms affecting the devices. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 can be used by different types of people at the same time in different workstations to view different aspects of the alarms associated with the process control system 1000. Furthermore, when using the alarm processing software 1050, it is relatively easy for an individual to turn over alarm functions that they are viewing and acknowledging to another individual who may have the same software. Alternatively, or additionally, an individual may set their filter to accept alarms that are normally viewed by another person. In this manner, one person may go to lunch and turn the alarm viewing function over to other persons at different workstations by resetting a few filter settings. When returning from lunch, that person may regain control of those functions. Also, when the amount of alarm information becomes too large for one person to handle, that person may hand off or shed the load for certain categories of alarms such as process alarms, device alarms or hardware alarms so that these alarms can be handled by other people at other terminals).
a communication interface that is communicatively coupled to the plurality of analysis devices, the plurality of terminals, and the position information acquisition device (Paragraph Number [0064] teaches a typical process control plant 10 includes a number of business and other computer systems interconnected with a number of control and maintenance systems by one or more communication networks. The illustrated process control plant 10 also includes one or more process control systems 12 and 14. The process control system 12 may be a traditional process control system such as a PROVOX or RS3 system or any other DCS. The system 12 illustrated in FIG. 1 includes an operator interface 12A coupled to a controller 12B and to input/output (I/O) cards 12C which, in turn, are coupled to various field devices such as analog and Highway Addressable Remote Transmitter (HART) field devices 15. The process control system 14, which may be a distributed process control system, includes one or more operator interfaces 14A coupled to one or more distributed controllers 14B via a bus, such as an Ethernet bus. The controllers 14B may be, for example, DeltaV.TM. controllers sold by Fisher Rosemount Systems, Inc. of Austin, Tex. or any other desired type of controllers. The controllers 14B are connected via I/O devices to one or more field devices 16, such as for example, HART or Fieldbus field devices or any other smart or non smart field devices including, for example, those that use any of the PROFIBUS.RTM., WORLDFIP.RTM., Device Net.RTM., AS Interface and CAN protocols. As is known, the field devices 16 may provide analog or digital information to the controllers 14B related to process variables as well as to other device information. The operator interfaces 14A may store and execute tools available to the process control operator for controlling the operation of the process including, for example, control optimizers, diagnostic experts, neural networks, tuners, etc.).
an information processing device coupled to the communication interface and the storage device, configured to: detect a generation of an alarm from any of the plurality of analyzers via the communication interface (Paragraph Number [0240] teaches the operator can customize the manner in which alarms are displayed based on the categories or types of alarms that the user is most interested in, which may all be one category or type of alarm such as process alarms, device alarms, hardware alarms or any combination of two or more categories of alarms. Further, the user may configure the display of alarms so that alarms or alerts of different severities may or may not be displayed. For example, the user may want to view only alarms or alerts contained within FAILED_ALM and MAINT_ALM parameters and may not want to view alarms or alerts contained within ADVISE_ALM parameters. More generally, the system operator or user may configure the display of alarms to view alerts or alarms associated with a device failure, a device needing maintenance, and/or an advisable action in connection with a device. The user may also have control over how the alarms are presented and the information provided with the alarms. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 enables a single person to perform the operations of an operator, a technician or maintenance person, and an engineer by viewing and addressing on the same screen the alarms that would normally be addressed by different personnel at different locations in a plant. Alternatively, at different times in the same system a maintenance person can use the same system to view only maintenance alarms while an engineer can view other types of alarms affecting the devices. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 can be used by different types of people at the same time in different workstations to view different aspects of the alarms associated with the process control system 1000.).
store, in the alarm information management table, the generated alarm (Paragraph Number [0236] teaches the alarm display and interface system includes an alarm processing unit 1064 that receives alarms and other event information from the communication layer 1062 in the form of messages, decodes those messages containing alarm or other event information and may store the alarm and other event information in a database 1066).
determine an alarm notification priority order of the laboratory technicians to which the generated alarm is to be notified (Paragraph Number [0239] teaches after testing alarms for conformance to the workstation and operator scope controls, the filter 1068 filters out and determines the display order of alarms based on operator settings, which may include, for example, the category of alarm, the priority of the alarm, the type of alarm, the acknowledged status of the alarm, the suppressed status of the alarm, the time of the alarm, the active status of the alarm, etc. The received alarms, which are sent to the alarm processing software 1050 using alarm messages (e.g., Fieldbus alarm messages) may include a parameter for each of these values and the filter 1068 may filter alarms for display by comparing the appropriate parameters of the alarms to the filter settings. For example, the operator can indicate which categories of alarms and priority levels of alarm should be displayed on the screen. If desired, the operator can adjust a predetermined priority level for an alarm by offsetting the priority level from the preconfigured priority level for the alarm set by the manufacturer. In the DeltaV.TM. system, a priority level between about three and fifteen is typically selected for each alarm and the operator can offset this priority level by any number of levels to make a higher priority a lower priority or a lower priority a higher priority when viewed by the filter 1068. While the operator may set the order of display of the alarms that are passed by the filter 1068, the order may also be determined by preconfigured settings to provide a consistent display of different types of alarms).
based on information on a task currently being performed by the laboratory technicians in the clinical laboratory (Paragraph Number [0029] teaches some of the tasks, such as monitoring equipment, testing the operation of devices, determining if the plant is running in an optimal manner, etc. are performed by outside consultants or service companies who measure the data needed, perform an analysis and then provide only the results of the analysis back to the plant personnel. In these cases, the data is typically collected and stored in a proprietary manner and is rarely made available to the plant personnel for other reasons).
having a highest priority according to the alarm notification priority order (Paragraph Number [0239] teaches after testing alarms for conformance to the workstation and operator scope controls, the filter 1068 filters out and determines the display order of alarms based on operator settings, which may include, for example, the category of alarm, the priority of the alarm, the type of alarm, the acknowledged status of the alarm, the suppressed status of the alarm, the time of the alarm, the active status of the alarm, etc. The received alarms, which are sent to the alarm processing software 1050 using alarm messages (e.g., Fieldbus alarm messages) may include a parameter for each of these values and the filter 1068 may filter alarms for display by comparing the appropriate parameters of the alarms to the filter settings. For example, the operator can indicate which categories of alarms and priority levels of alarm should be displayed on the screen. If desired, the operator can adjust a predetermined priority level for an alarm by offsetting the priority level from the preconfigured priority level for the alarm set by the manufacturer. In the DeltaV.TM. system, a priority level between about three and fifteen is typically selected for each alarm and the operator can offset this priority level by any number of levels to make a higher priority a lower priority or a lower priority a higher priority when viewed by the filter 1068. While the operator may set the order of display of the alarms that are passed by the filter 1068, the order may also be determined by preconfigured settings to provide a consistent display of different types of alarms).
indicating a position where the laboratory technician who handles the generated alarm stops prior to the device that generated the generated alarm (Paragraph Number [0240] teaches the alarm processing software 1050 enables a single person to perform the operations of an operator, a technician or maintenance person, and an engineer by viewing and addressing on the same screen the alarms that would normally be addressed by different personnel at different locations in a plant. Alternatively, at different times in the same system a maintenance person can use the same system to view only maintenance alarms while an engineer can view other types of alarms affecting the devices. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 can be used by different types of people at the same time in different workstations to view different aspects of the alarms associated with the process control system 1000. Furthermore, when using the alarm processing software 1050, it is relatively easy for an individual to turn over alarm functions that they are viewing and acknowledging to another individual who may have the same software. Alternatively, or additionally, an individual may set their filter to accept alarms that are normally viewed by another person. In this manner, one person may go to lunch and turn the alarm viewing function over to other persons at different workstations by resetting a few filter settings. When returning from lunch, that person may regain control of those functions. Also, when the amount of alarm information becomes too large for one person to handle, that person may hand off or shed the load for certain categories of alarms such as process alarms, device alarms or hardware alarms so that these alarms can be handled by other people at other terminals).
notify the terminal of the laboratory technician having the highest priority according to the alarm notification priority order of the generated alarm (Paragraph Number [0240] teaches the operator can customize the manner in which alarms are displayed based on the categories or types of alarms that the user is most interested in, which may all be one category or type of alarm such as process alarms, device alarms, hardware alarms or any combination of two or more categories of alarms. Further, the user may configure the display of alarms so that alarms or alerts of different severities may or may not be displayed. For example, the user may want to view only alarms or alerts contained within FAILED_ALM and MAINT_ALM parameters and may not want to view alarms or alerts contained within ADVISE_ALM parameters. More generally, the system operator or user may configure the display of alarms to view alerts or alarms associated with a device failure, a device needing maintenance, and/or an advisable action in connection with a device. The user may also have control over how the alarms are presented and the information provided with the alarms. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 enables a single person to perform the operations of an operator, a technician or maintenance person, and an engineer by viewing and addressing on the same screen the alarms that would normally be addressed by different personnel at different locations in a plant. Alternatively, at different times in the same system a maintenance person can use the same system to view only maintenance alarms while an engineer can view other types of alarms affecting the devices. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 can be used by different types of people at the same time in different workstations to view different aspects of the alarms associated with the process control system 1000).
Eryurek teaches presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm but does not explicitly teach determining the general presence of technicians and their proximity to tasks which is taught by the following citations from Sasaki:
which is obtained from the person in-charge schedule management table, and position information based on a distance between a position information reference point indicating a position where the laboratory technician... stops (Paragraph Number [0023] teaches if an alarm is generated immediately after the error has occurred in the device configuration in which various processing units and a carrying-out location of the error sample are distant from each other, the operator arrives at the carrying-out location before the error sample arrives at the carrying-out destination, and the operator has to wait in some cases. Paragraph Number [0184] teaches in the operation unit in advance, sensor position information (sensor is not illustrated in the drawings) indicating tray installation positions on the installation base, tray type information indicating vertical/horizontal sizes of the installed trays, and the range information of identifier numbers (tray IDs) of the trays installed on the sensor positions are set as parameters in the operation unit 267. Then, when the dedicated tray of the test technician is installed in the installation area of the storage unit, rationality check of the identifier of the tray and the above-described parameters is carried out; and, if irrational, alarms are generated by the monitor 264 and the speaker 265 to notify the test technician of the fact that the type of the installed tray and the installation position of the tray are wrong. Paragraph Number [0264] teaches a time lag of about several tens of seconds may be generated before the sample is carried out to the error carrying-out destination after the error has actually occurred. If the error notifying unit 492 immediately notifies the operator of the error at the point when the error occurred, a situation occurs in which the error sample has not been carried out yet even when the operator rushes to the carried-out location of the error sample. In this case, the operator has once turned off the alarm and waits on site until the sample comes out or starts another task. If the other task has been started, start of a process may be delayed without noticing carry-out of the error sample since the alarm has been turned off).
which is obtained from the person in-charge schedule management table, and position information based on a distance between the stop position (Paragraph Number [0023] teaches if an alarm is generated immediately after the error has occurred in the device configuration in which various processing units and a carrying-out location of the error sample are distant from each other, the operator arrives at the carrying-out location before the error sample arrives at the carrying-out destination, and the operator has to wait in some cases. Paragraph Number [0184] teaches in the operation unit in advance, sensor position information (sensor is not illustrated in the drawings) indicating tray installation positions on the installation base, tray type information indicating vertical/horizontal sizes of the installed trays, and the range information of identifier numbers (tray IDs) of the trays installed on the sensor positions are set as parameters in the operation unit 267. Then, when the dedicated tray of the test technician is installed in the installation area of the storage unit, rationality check of the identifier of the tray and the above-described parameters is carried out; and, if irrational, alarms are generated by the monitor 264 and the speaker 265 to notify the test technician of the fact that the type of the installed tray and the installation position of the tray are wrong. Paragraph Number [0264] teaches a time lag of about several tens of seconds may be generated before the sample is carried out to the error carrying-out destination after the error has actually occurred. If the error notifying unit 492 immediately notifies the operator of the error at the point when the error occurred, a situation occurs in which the error sample has not been carried out yet even when the operator rushes to the carried-out location of the error sample. In this case, the operator has once turned off the alarm and waits on site until the sample comes out or starts another task. If the other task has been started, start of a process may be delayed without noticing carry-out of the error sample since the alarm has been turned off).
which is identified from the alarm information management table and the alarm handling stop position management table (Paragraph Number [0264] teaches a time lag of about several tens of seconds may be generated before the sample is carried out to the error carrying-out destination after the error has actually occurred. If the error notifying unit 492 immediately notifies the operator of the error at the point when the error occurred, a situation occurs in which the error sample has not been carried out yet even when the operator rushes to the carried-out location of the error sample. In this case, the operator has once turned off the alarm and waits on site until the sample comes out or starts another task. If the other task has been started, start of a process may be delayed without noticing carry-out of the error sample since the alarm has been turned off).
Both Eryurek and Sasaki are directed to employee task monitoring. Eryurek discloses presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm. Sasaki improves upon Eryurek by disclosing determining the general presence of technicians and their proximity to tasks. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include determining the general presence of technicians and their proximity to tasks, to efficiently determine which employees should be responsible for particular tasks based on their response time in reaching the specific task area.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm in Eryurek to further utilize determining the general presence of technicians and their proximity to tasks as disclosed in Sasaki, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Eryurek teaches presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm but does not explicitly teach determining the physical location of technicians using a position acquisition device which is taught by the following citations from Bassham:
a position information acquisition device configured to acquire position information of the laboratory technicians (Paragraph Number [0116] teaches HOS 100 tracks the location and status for medical devices used for patient care. This includes both portable and fixed-location equipment. This location and status information is made available for use by the operators performing the patient planning and scheduling function, as well as appropriate hospital personnel inquiring about the devices. Paragraph Number [0146] teaches the RESOURCE assists in managing hospital staffing levels for physicians, nurses, allied HCP's and other hospital staff. The RESOURCE tracks staff on duty, as well as their specialty, location, shift schedule, and contact information in order to maintain appropriate staffing ratios. In doing so, the RESOURCE also accounts for the staff's long-term job satisfaction and cost reduction).
and a current position of the laboratory technician in the clinical laboratory (Paragraph Number [0116] teaches HOS 100 tracks the location and status for medical devices used for patient care. This includes both portable and fixed-location equipment. This location and status information is made available for use by the operators performing the patient planning and scheduling function, as well as appropriate hospital personnel inquiring about the devices. Paragraph Number [0146] teaches the RESOURCE assists in managing hospital staffing levels for physicians, nurses, allied HCP's and other hospital staff. The RESOURCE tracks staff on duty, as well as their specialty, location, shift schedule, and contact information in order to maintain appropriate staffing ratios. In doing so, the RESOURCE also accounts for the staff's long-term job satisfaction and cost reduction).
Both the combination of Eryurek and Sasaki and Bassham are directed to employee task monitoring. The combination of Eryurek and Sasaki discloses presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm. Bassham improves upon the combination of Eryurek and Sasaki by disclosing determining the physical location of technicians using a position acquisition device. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include determining the physical location of technicians using a position acquisition device, to efficiently determine precise location of employees within the workspace and their orientation with respect to workstations.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm in the combination of Eryurek and Sasaki to further utilize determining the physical location of technicians using a position acquisition device as disclosed in Bassham, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, claim 9 recites a method for performing substantially similar steps as described in regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons put forth in regard to claim 1.
As per claims 2 and 10, the combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively.
In addition, Eryurek teaches:
the storage device stores a person-in-charge information management table that registers one or more alarms that can be handled by each laboratory technician (Paragraph Number [0263] teaches the asset management system 1206 sends alert or alarm information associated with particular parameters of particular devices that have been selected during execution of the configuration routines 1210. The rules-engine 1212 processes the received alert or alarm information and determines which, if any, of the business systems 1204 will receive notifications. These notifications may include the alert, a priority associated with the alert and a description of the alert, which may be provided by or derived from a device description. Such descriptions may include, for example, textual information relating to repair and/or replacement of a device to remedy a detected problem. Additionally, these notifications are preferably designed to elicit some action by the receiving ones of the business systems 1204. In some cases, a business system may be designed to request notifications and, in those cases, the event management system 1202 will only send notifications if such requests are made. However, in other cases, a business system may simply receive notifications from the event management system 1202 without having to poll the event management system 1202).
wherein the information processing device is configured to determine one or more the laboratory technicians as candidate having terminals for receiving a notification of the generated alarm based on the alarm information management table and the person-in-charge information management table among laboratory technicians in the clinical laboratory. (Paragraph Number [0240] teaches the operator can customize the manner in which alarms are displayed based on the categories or types of alarms that the user is most interested in, which may all be one category or type of alarm such as process alarms, device alarms, hardware alarms or any combination of two or more categories of alarms. Further, the user may configure the display of alarms so that alarms or alerts of different severities may or may not be displayed. For example, the user may want to view only alarms or alerts contained within FAILED_ALM and MAINT_ALM parameters and may not want to view alarms or alerts contained within ADVISE_ALM parameters. More generally, the system operator or user may configure the display of alarms to view alerts or alarms associated with a device failure, a device needing maintenance, and/or an advisable action in connection with a device. The user may also have control over how the alarms are presented and the information provided with the alarms. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 enables a single person to perform the operations of an operator, a technician or maintenance person, and an engineer by viewing and addressing on the same screen the alarms that would normally be addressed by different personnel at different locations in a plant. Alternatively, at different times in the same system a maintenance person can use the same system to view only maintenance alarms while an engineer can view other types of alarms affecting the devices. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 can be used by different types of people at the same time in different workstations to view different aspects of the alarms associated with the process control system 1000. Furthermore, when using the alarm processing software 1050, it is relatively easy for an individual to turn over alarm functions that they are viewing and acknowledging to another individual who may have the same software. Alternatively, or additionally, an individual may set their filter to accept alarms that are normally viewed by another person. In this manner, one person may go to lunch and turn the alarm viewing function over to other persons at different workstations by resetting a few filter settings. When returning from lunch, that person may regain control of those functions. Also, when the amount of alarm information becomes too large for one person to handle, that person may hand off or shed the load for certain categories of alarms such as process alarms, device alarms or hardware alarms so that these alarms can be handled by other people at other terminals).
As per claims 4 and 12, the combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham teaches each of the limitations of claim 1 and 9 respectively.
In addition, Eryurek teaches:
the information processing device is configured to receive a notification of an intention to handle the generated alarm from the terminal of the laboratory technician notified of the generated alarm (Paragraph Number [0263] teaches the asset management system 1206 sends alert or alarm information associated with particular parameters of particular devices that have been selected during execution of the configuration routines 1210. The rules-engine 1212 processes the received alert or alarm information and determines which, if any, of the business systems 1204 will receive notifications. These notifications may include the alert, a priority associated with the alert and a description of the alert, which may be provided by or derived from a device description. Such descriptions may include, for example, textual information relating to repair and/or replacement of a device to remedy a detected problem. Additionally, these notifications are preferably designed to elicit some action by the receiving ones of the business systems 1204. In some cases, a business system may be designed to request notifications and, in those cases, the event management system 1202 will only send notifications if such requests are made. However, in other cases, a business system may simply receive notifications from the event management system 1202 without having to poll the event management system 1202).
and register the laboratory technician notified of the generated alarm as a person-in-charge who handles the generated alarm in the alarm information management table stored in the storage device. (Paragraph Number [0267] teaches the business systems 1204 may also be adapted to send confirmation information to the event management system 1202. Generally speaking, these confirmations include information indicative of the actions that have been taken place in connection with a user's or operator's use of or interaction with the business systems 1204. These confirmations may be used by the event management system 1202 to clear events and/or update the state machines 1214 within the event management system 1202. The event management system 1202 may also send confirmation information to the asset management system 1206 for storage within the database 1208. For example, in the case of a CMMS, the CMMS may send confirmations to the database 1208 via the event management system 1202 in response to the generation of work orders, in response to a preventative maintenance request, in response to the assignment of personnel to a particular problem or work order, when the work associated with a work order or preventative maintenance request has been completed, when a work order or preventative maintenance request is closed, etc.).
As per claim 5, the combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
In addition, Eryurek teaches:
the terminal of the laboratory technician as a person-in-charge who handles the generated alarm receive an input of a comment on handling the generated alarm (Paragraph Number [0160] teaches the GUI described herein may automatically, or may in response to a request by a user, provide maintenance information to the user. The maintenance information may be provided by any portion of the asset utilization suite 50. Similarly, the GUT may display alarm information, process control information, etc., which may also be provided by the asset utilization suite 50. Still further, the GUI may provide messages to the user in connection with a problem that has occurred or which may be about to occur within the plant 10. These messages may include graphical and/or textual information that describes the problem, suggests possible changes to the system which may be implemented to alleviate a current problem or which may be implemented to avoid a potential problem, describes courses of action that may be pursued to correct or to avoid a problem, etc.).
wherein the information processing device is configured to receive an input of the comment from the terminal of the laboratory technician as the person in-charge who handles the generated alarm, and register the comment in the alarm information management table stored in the storage device. (Paragraph Number [0160] teaches the GUI described herein may automatically, or may in response to a request by a user, provide maintenance information to the user. The maintenance information may be provided by any portion of the asset utilization suite 50. Similarly, the GUT may display alarm information, process control information, etc., which may also be provided by the asset utilization suite 50. Still further, the GUI may provide messages to the user in connection with a problem that has occurred or which may be about to occur within the plant 10. These messages may include graphical and/or textual information that describes the problem, suggests possible changes to the system which may be implemented to alleviate a current problem or which may be implemented to avoid a potential problem, describes courses of action that may be pursued to correct or to avoid a problem, etc.).
As per claims 7 and 14, the combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, and 9 and 10 respectively.
In addition, Eryurek teaches:
the information processing device is configured to: register the information on the generated alarm whose generation is detected as n alarms in the alarm information management table when the generated alarm whose generation is detected is an alarm that requires n persons-in-charge who handle, and perform the prioritization for notifying the alarm on the laboratory technician in the clinical laboratory for each of the n alarms. (Paragraph Number [0240] teaches the operator can customize the manner in which alarms are displayed based on the categories or types of alarms that the user is most interested in, which may all be one category or type of alarm such as process alarms, device alarms, hardware alarms or any combination of two or more categories of alarms. Further, the user may configure the display of alarms so that alarms or alerts of different severities may or may not be displayed. For example, the user may want to view only alarms or alerts contained within FAILED_ALM and MAINT_ALM parameters and may not want to view alarms or alerts contained within ADVISE_ALM parameters. More generally, the system operator or user may configure the display of alarms to view alerts or alarms associated with a device failure, a device needing maintenance, and/or an advisable action in connection with a device. The user may also have control over how the alarms are presented and the information provided with the alarms. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 enables a single person to perform the operations of an operator, a technician or maintenance person, and an engineer by viewing and addressing on the same screen the alarms that would normally be addressed by different personnel at different locations in a plant. Alternatively, at different times in the same system a maintenance person can use the same system to view only maintenance alarms while an engineer can view other types of alarms affecting the devices. In this manner, the alarm processing software 1050 can be used by different types of people at the same time in different workstations to view different aspects of the alarms associated with the process control system 1000. Furthermore, when using the alarm processing software 1050, it is relatively easy for an individual to turn over alarm functions that they are viewing and acknowledging to another individual who may have the same software. Alternatively, or additionally, an individual may set their filter to accept alarms that are normally viewed by another person. In this manner, one person may go to lunch and turn the alarm viewing function over to other persons at different workstations by resetting a few filter settings. When returning from lunch, that person may regain control of those functions. Also, when the amount of alarm information becomes too large for one person to handle, that person may hand off or shed the load for certain categories of alarms such as process alarms, device alarms or hardware alarms so that these alarms can be handled by other people at other terminals).
As per claims 8 and 15, the combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham teaches each of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 7, and 9, 10, and 14 respectively.
In addition, Eryurek teaches:
in the person-in-charge information management table, when the alarm from the plurality of analyzers or the management device is an alarm that requires n persons-in-charge who handle, whether the alarm can be handled is registered for each of the n alarms registered in the alarm information management table. (Paragraph Number [0263] teaches the asset management system 1206 sends alert or alarm information associated with particular parameters of particular devices that have been selected during execution of the configuration routines 1210. The rules-engine 1212 processes the received alert or alarm information and determines which, if any, of the business systems 1204 will receive notifications. These notifications may include the alert, a priority associated with the alert and a description of the alert, which may be provided by or derived from a device description. Such descriptions may include, for example, textual information relating to repair and/or replacement of a device to remedy a detected problem. Additionally, these notifications are preferably designed to elicit some action by the receiving ones of the business systems 1204. In some cases, a business system may be designed to request notifications and, in those cases, the event management system 1202 will only send notifications if such requests are made. However, in other cases, a business system may simply receive notifications from the event management system 1202 without having to poll the event management system 1202.).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0007249 to Eryurek et al. (hereafter referred to as Eryurek) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0061693 to Sasaki et al. (hereafter referred to as Sasaki) and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0167465 to Mihai et al. (hereafter referred to as Mihai).
As per claims 6 and 13, the combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham teaches each of the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 5, and 9 and 12 respectively.
Eryurek teaches presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm but does not explicitly teach reassigning or escalating alarms to other workers which is taught by the following citations from Mihai:
the information processing device is configured to receive a notification of an intention to give up handling the generated alarm from the terminal of the laboratory technician as the person-in-charge who handles the generated alarm, (Paragraph Number [0178] teaches the system 210 provides for the escalation of alarms or alerts that are not indicated as corrected within a predetermined period of time. Conditions that can result in the escalation of an alarm or an alert are preferably defined by the health care facility. Likewise, the time before an alarm or alert escalates can also be defined by the health care facility. Accordingly, predefined alarms or alerts that are not corrected by a clinician within a predefined period of time will result in the escalation of the associated alarms or alerts. Thus, the frequency that the clinician is notified by the system of the escalated alarms or alerts is preferably increased, as can be the volume of the audible tones associated therewith. Paragraph Number [0416] teaches one type of notification is an alarm/alert notification. In the present system, notifications may be escalated. A specific alarm/alert escalation process is shown in FIG. 15).
register an alarm that the person-in-charge who handles the generated alarm gives up as a new alarm in the alarm information management table stored in the storage device (Paragraph Number [0178] teaches the system 210 provides for the escalation of alarms or alerts that are not indicated as corrected within a predetermined period of time. Conditions that can result in the escalation of an alarm or an alert are preferably defined by the health care facility. Likewise, the time before an alarm or alert escalates can also be defined by the health care facility. Accordingly, predefined alarms or alerts that are not corrected by a clinician within a predefined period of time will result in the escalation of the associated alarms or alerts. Thus, the frequency that the clinician is notified by the system of the escalated alarms or alerts is preferably increased, as can be the volume of the audible tones associated therewith. Paragraph Number [0416] teaches one type of notification is an alarm/alert notification. In the present system, notifications may be escalated. A specific alarm/alert escalation process is shown in FIG. 15).
Both the combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham and Mihai are directed to employee task monitoring. The combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham discloses presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm. Mihai improves upon the combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham by disclosing reassigning or escalating alarms to other workers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include reassigning or escalating alarms to other workers, to efficiently track who is responsible for a specific task and to ensure task completion.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of presenting alarms to laboratory technicians and tracking the technicians’ response to the alarm in the combination of Eryurek, Sasaki, and Bassham to further utilize reassigning or escalating alarms to other workers as disclosed in Mihai, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 12/9/2025, pgs. 11-17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations or to further implement abstract concepts that further organize human activities (i.e. humans completing tasks). The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations that improve upon the underlying computer technology. Instead, Examiner asserts that the claim language is only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. The claims are not directed towards the technology, but are instead directed towards the overarching abstract concepts and in this way is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims nor do the claims recite significantly more than the underlying abstract concepts.
Applicant argues that the newly amended claim language is not taught by the combination of cited references. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 12/9/2025, pgs. 17-23). Specifically, Applicant asserts that Eryurek and Sasaki do not teach “which is obtained from the person in-charge schedule management table, and position information based on a distance between the stop position indicating a position where the laboratory technician who handles the generated alarm stops prior to the device that generated the generated alarm.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, Examiner asserts that it is the combination of these two reference not the references individually that teach this limitation. Examiner further asserts that portions of teachings from both references are needed and, when taken together, teach the specifics Applicant asserts are missing. For Example, The Eryurek reference teaches “the alarm processing software 1050 can be used by different types of people at the same time in different workstations to view different aspects of the alarms associated with the process control system 1000 (See Paragraph Number [0240]), which teaches at least the limitation “indicating a position where the laboratory technician who handles the generated alarm stops prior to the device that generated the generated alarm.” The Eryurek teaches alarms that indicate position of personnel as well as where the alarms are located. It also teaches where different workers can handle different alarms based on their status and location. As such, Examiner asserts that the Eryurek reference teaches this portion of the limitations. Additionally, the Sasaki reference is brought in to teach the remained of the cited limitation. Specifically, the Sasaki reference teaches data which is obtained from scheduling and positioning data including distance between a worker and a particular station. (See Paragraph Numbers [0023] and [0184]). These teachings read on at least the claim limitation “which is obtained from the person in-charge schedule management table, and position information based on a distance between the stop position.”
Applicant argues that the previous claim language is not taught by the combination of cited references. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 12/9/2025, pgs. 17-22). Specifically, Applicant asserts that Bassham does not teach “and a current position of the laboratory technician in the clinical laboratory.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular to Bassham reference explicitly teaches “the RESOURCE tracks staff on duty, as well as their specialty, location, shift schedule, and contact information in order to maintain appropriate staffing ratios.” This teaching teaches at the very least the specific location of a particular worker within their workspace. Examiner contends that this is functionally equivalent to determining a current position of a laboratory technician in a clinical laboratory. Accordingly, Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571)270-0166. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 6:00 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. H. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624