DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1-2 and 6-19 are pending and under examination.
Claims 3-5 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
The 101 rejection(s) have been modified to address the claim amendments.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, received 05/25/2026, the previous prior art rejection over Hren has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).
Based on the amended claims, new double patenting rejection(s) have been set forth.
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 and 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed toward a system. Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium. Claim 15 is directed towards a method.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
Claims 1, 13, and 15 recite the abstract ideas, “receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory”, “receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configuration of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration”, “receiving, from a first scientific device in the first laboratory, a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset to process a batch, wherein the laboratory application includes a first part and a second part and the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory”, “identifying one or more laboratory applications compatible with the first scientific device”, “providing, in response to the request, the compatible one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using the first scientific device”, “receiving, from the first scientific device, a selected laboratory application from the compatible one or more laboratory applications”, “receiving, from the first scientific device, a result signal indicating whether executing at least the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch was successful”, “updating based on the result signal, a batch status for the batch of samples to indicate completion of the first part of the selected laboratory application”, “the second scientific device is selected, by the user”.
These abstract ideas are mental processes that could be performed by a human person by pen and paper or by a black box computer. The processing circuitry to perform the recited steps/processes is simply a general-purpose computer for which to apply the abstract ideas, but does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
The abstract ideas are performed by processing circuitry of one or more servers and a memory storing instructions which are just a general-purpose computer. However, use of conventional computer functions to apply the judicial exception does not qualify as a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I), MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II) and MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III)).
If the “storing” and “receiving” are deemed not to be abstract ideas, then they do not integrate the exception into a particular practical application.
Storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples is interpreted as generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception, but does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
The memory to store information does not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation).
Transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Transmitting, based on the batch status, to a second scientific device, a second control signal for executing the second part of the selected laboratory applicant is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
If “receiving” is deemed not to be abstract ideas, then it does not integrate the exception into a particular practical application because it is merely data gathering and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor.
Receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configuration of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Receiving, from a first scientific device in the first laboratory, a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset to process a batch, wherein the laboratory application includes a first part and a second part and the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Receiving, from the first scientific device, a selected laboratory application from the compatible one or more laboratory applications is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Receiving, from the first scientific device, a result signal indicating whether executing at least the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch was successful is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
The step of “providing” and “running” are not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
Providing, in response to the request, the compatible one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using the first scientific device is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Further, the steps of “updating” and “running” are not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
Updating, based on the result signal, a batch status for the batch of samples to indicate completion of the first part of the selected laboratory application is interpreted as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea to the field of use and insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception).
Running, the second part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch at a second scientific device, wherein the second scientific device is selected, by the user, from the one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory and the second scientific device is different from the first scientific device is interpreted as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea to the field of use and insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
Claims 1, 13, and 15 recite the additional elements of “storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples”, “receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory”, “receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configuration of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration”, “receiving, from a first scientific device in the first laboratory, a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset to process a batch, wherein the laboratory application includes a first part and a second part and the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory”, “identifying one or more laboratory applications compatible with the first scientific device”, “providing, in response to the request, the compatible one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using the first scientific device”, “receiving, from the first scientific device, a selected laboratory application from the compatible one or more laboratory applications”, “transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration”, “receiving, from the first scientific device, a result signal indicating whether executing at least the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch was successful”, “updating based on the result signal, a batch status for the batch of samples to indicate completion of the first part of the selected laboratory application”, “transmitting, based on the batch status, to a second scientific device, a second control signal for executing the second part of the selected laboratory application”, and “running based on the updated batch status, the second part of the second laboratory application to process the batch at a second scientific device, wherein the second scientific device is selected, by the user, from the one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory and the second scientific device is different from the first scientific device”.
These additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by Freudenthal et al. (US 2014/0213487 – hereinafter “Freudenthal”) and Hren et al. (US 2015/0100155 – hereinafter “Hren”). Freudenthal and Hren teach
“storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples” (Freudenthal; figs. 12-14, [0112-0124] and Hren; figs. 7-8, [0063]),
“receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory” (Freudenthal; figs. 1-2, 5-7, and 12-17, [0020-0021, 0058-0060, 0062-0066, 0068-0069, 0071, 0080, 0089-0092, 0113-0130] and Hren; figs. 1, 7, 10, 14-36, [0021, 0042, 0047, 0067, 0078-0170]),
“receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configuration of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration” (Freudenthal; figs. 14-17, [0124-0130] and Hren; figs. 10 & 14-26, [0055, 0067, 0078-0118],
“receiving, from a first scientific device in the first laboratory, a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset to process a batch, wherein the laboratory application includes a first part and a second part and the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory” (Freudenthal; figs. 1-2, 5-8 & 12-17, [0058-0060, 0062-0066, 0068-0069, 0071, 0089-0092, 0113-0130] and Hren; Hren; figs. 1, 6, 9-13, 28, and 30, [0021, 0024, 0037, 0042, 0045-0046, 0062, 0067-0077, 0126, 0133]; [0062]),
“identifying one or more laboratory applications compatible with the first scientific device” (Freudenthal; figs. 10, 12-13, 15-19, [0079, 0082-0084, 0086, 0093-0094, 0114, 0117, 0120-0121]),
“providing, in response to the request, the compatible one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using the first scientific device” (Freudenthal; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121] and Hren; [0021, 0046, 0134]),
“receiving, from the first scientific device, a selected laboratory application from the compatible one or more laboratory applications” (Freudenthal; figs. 12-13, [0114, 0117, 0120-0121] and Hren; figs. 1 & 6, [0021, 0037, 0045-0046, 0062]),
“transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration” (Freudenthal, fig. 14, [0020-0021, 0124] and Hren; [0042, 0046, 0062]),
“receiving, from the first scientific device, a result signal indicating whether executing at least the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch was successful” (Freudenthal; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121] and Hren; [0024, 0041-0042]),
“updating based on the result signal, a batch status for the batch of samples to indicate completion of the first part of the selected laboratory application” (Freudenthal; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]),
“transmitting, based on the batch status, to a second scientific device, a second control signal for executing the second part of the selected laboratory application” (Freudenthal; figs. 12-14, [0020-0021, 0117, 0120-0121, 0124]), and
“running based on the updated batch status, the second part of the second laboratory application to process the batch at a second scientific device, wherein the second scientific device is selected, by the user, from the one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory and the second scientific device is different from the first scientific device” (Freudenthal; fig. 13, [0121]).
Claims 2 & 14 recites the abstract idea of receiving an operator configuration from a lab operator client device (step 2A prong 1) which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment), but does not integrate the additional element “a lab operator client device” under 2A prong 2 because the lab operator client device does not amount to significantly more as this is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Freudenthal and Hren (Freudenthal; figs. 12-14, [0020-0021, 0117, 0120-0121, 0124] and Hren; [0025]).
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of receiving a selection of a second subset of the selected laboratory applications from a second lab administrator client device associated with a second laboratory (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment), but does not integrate the additional element “a second lab administrator client device and a second laboratory” under 2A prong 2 because the lab operator client device does not amount to significantly more as this is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Hren (Hren; [0021, 0025]).
Claim 7 recites the abstract ideas of receiving a result, determining whether the result is within a range, and providing the result to a lab operator client device (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity, but would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more as performing repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I), MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II), MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III), MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). The claim recites the additional element of “a lab operator client device”, but does not integrate the additional element under 2A prong 2 because the lab operator client device does not amount to significantly more as this is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Freudenthal and Hren (Freudenthal; figs. 6-8, 13, 15, [0010, 0092, 0103, 0122, 0126-0128] and Hren; [0025]).
Claim 8 recites elements directed towards receiving the result from the user while the first scientific device is offline (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). The additional elements are also considered well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Freudenthal (Freudenthal; figs. 6-8, 13, 15, [0092, 0103, 0122, 0126-0128]).
Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of determining whether the first scientific device is connected via a network (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). The additional elements are also considered well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Freudenthal (Freudenthal; [0062, 0115, 0117, 0120, 0122, 0126]).
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea “setting a production status of at least one laboratory application” (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). The additional elements are also considered well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Hren (Hren; fig. 16, [0080]).
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea “at least a scan of a container of a sample … identifying the sample based on the scan” which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). The additional elements are also considered well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Dockrill et al. (US 2015/0300931; hereinafter “Dockrill”) (Dockrill; fig. 7, [0067]).
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea “applying optical character recognition (OCR) to at least a portion of the scan” which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). The additional elements are also considered well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Dockrill (Dockrill; fig. 7, [0067-0068]).
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea “identifying at least one incompatible laboratory application from the set of laboratory applications” (Step 2A Prong 1), but does not integrate the exception because hiding incompatible applications from the set of laboratory applications is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity similar to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937 and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Claim 17 recites the abstract idea “identifying at least one incompatible laboratory application from the set of laboratory applications” and “suggesting to the user to address the incompatibility” (step 2A prong 1), but does not integrate the exception because “identifying” is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity similar to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937 and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and “suggesting” is interpreted as mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception).
Claim 18 recites updating the software of the first scientific device to address the incompatibility. However, these elements are interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity similar to Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754, and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Claim 19 recite downloading a portion of at least one of the one or more compatible laboratory applications to the first scientific device after identifying one or more laboratory applications compatible with the first scientific device. However, these elements are interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity similar to Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754, and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 11, 13, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freudenthal et al. (US 2014/0213487 – hereinafter “Freudenthal”).
Regarding claim 1, Freudenthal disclose a system (Freudenthal; fig. 1, #100, [0051]) comprising:
processing circuitry of one or more servers (Freudenthal; fig. 2, [0060-0062]); and
a memory in communication with the processing circuitry, the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry (Freudenthal; figs. 2 & 14, #206, #1402, [0063, 0124]), cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (Freudenthal disclose the memory comprises instructions for a filling apparatus 1200 and operation of a thermal cycler scheduler; figs. 12-13, [0112-0123]. A scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose computing system 200 as a computer, server, client, desktop, laptop, tablet, etc. and comprises user interface 122 for communicating information and command selections to the processor on control system 120, and a web-based scheduling interface 1406, which may be displayed on another computing system, connected to the instrument that communicates with a processor of the instrument; figs. 1, 5-8 & 14-17, [0058-0059, 0062, 0089-0092, 0124-0130]), a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose instructions are sent and received as a data file by the scheduler 1400 to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler to perform applications on batches of samples; figs. 1-2, 5-7, and 12-17, [0060, 0063-0066, 0068-0069, 0071, 0113-0123]) and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]);
receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (Freudenthal; figs. 14-17, [0124-0130]);
receiving, from a first scientific device in the first laboratory, a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset to process a batch, wherein the laboratory application includes a first part and a second part and the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose computing system 200 as a computer, server, client, desktop, laptop, tablet, etc. and comprises user interface 122 for communicating information and command selections to the processor on control system 120, and a web-based scheduling interface 1406, which may be displayed on another computing system, connected to the instrument that communicates with a processor of the instrument; figs. 1, 5-8 & 14-17, [0058-0059, 0062, 0089-0092, 0124-0130]. Instructions are sent and received as a data file by the scheduler 1400 to the filling apparatus (first scientific device) to process a batch of samples and thermal cycler (second scientific device) to perform applications on batches of samples; figs. 1-2, 5-7, and 12-17, [0060, 0063-0066, 0068-0069, 0071, 0113-0123]);
identifying one or more laboratory applications compatible with the first scientific device (Freudenthal disclose the data file 1212 comprising instructions including assay definitions, sample location definitions, and positional mapping instructions; [0114]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
providing, in response to the request, the compatible one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using the first scientific device (Freudenthal; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
receiving, from the first scientific device, a selected laboratory application from the compatible one or more laboratory applications (Freudenthal disclose the data file 1212 comprising instructions including assay definitions, sample location definitions, and positional mapping instructions; [0114]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]);
receiving, from the first scientific device, a result signal indicating whether executing at least the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch was successful (Freudenthal disclose after loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
updating, based on the result signal, a batch status for the batch of samples to indicate completion of the first part of the selected laboratory application (Freudenthal disclose after loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
transmitting, based on the batch status, to a second scientific device, a second control signal for executing the second part of the selected laboratory application (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]); and
wherein the result signal indicates that the first part of the selected batch was successful, the operations (Freudenthal; fig. 13, step 1360, [0121]) further comprising:
running, based on the updated batch status, the second part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch at a second scientific device, wherein the second scientific device is selected, by the user, from the one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory and the second scientific device is different from the first scientific device (Freudenthal; fig. 13, step 1360, [0121]).
Regarding claim 2, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 1 above, the operations further comprising: receiving, from a lab operator client device, an operator configuration for the selected laboratory application, wherein the control signal is for executing the at least the first part of the selected laboratory application in accordance with the admin configuration and the operator configuration (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]).
Regarding claim 7, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 1 above, the operations further comprising: receiving, upon completion of the selected laboratory application to process the batch, a result of the selected laboratory application to process the batch; determining whether the result falls within a predefined range; and providing, to a lab operator client device, the result of the selected laboratory application to process the batch and an indication whether the result falls within the predefined range (Freudenthal disclose an error may be determined during operations due to thermal inaccuracy and results may be viewed by the client device, or the progress/status of the instrument may be viewed on the user interface; figs. 6-8, 13 15, step 1362, [0092, 0103, 0122, 0126-0128]. The thermal inaccuracy being outside of a predefined temperature range; [0010]).
Regarding claim 8, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 7 above, wherein the result is received from the user via the lab operator client device while the first scientific device is offline (Freudenthal disclose an error may be determined during operations due to thermal inaccuracy and results may be viewed by the client device, or the progress/status of the instrument may be viewed on the user interface; figs. 6-8, 13 15, step 1362, [0092, 0103, 0122, 0126-0128]. The thermal inaccuracy being outside of a predefined temperature range; [0010]. The error can include a power surge in which case the instrument would be offline; [0122]).
Regarding claim 9, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the first scientific device is configured to: determine, upon completing executing the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch, whether the first scientific device is connected to the one or more servers via a network; if the first scientific device is connected to the one or more servers: transmit the result signal to the one or more servers; and if the first scientific device is not connected to the one or more servers: periodically ping the one or more servers to determine whether the first scientific device has reestablished connectivity with the one or more servers; and upon reestablishing connectivity: transmit the result signal to the one or more servers (Freudenthal disclose the data file 1212 is modified by the first scientific device and the updated filed 1218 is sent to the second scientific device; [0117]. An error may occur due to a power surge in which case the network connection to the first scientific device would be lost; [0122]. In such case, the filling station 1200 connected to the network would reestablish connectivity and transmit the result to the one or more servers accessible via the web-based user interface and IP address assigned to the device; [0062, 0115, 0120, 0126]).
Regarding claim 11, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the request to run the laboratory application to process the batch comprises at least a scan of a container of a sample, the operations further comprising: identifying the sample based on the scan (Freudenthal; fig. 4, #462, [0086-0087, 0118]).
Regarding claim 13, Freudenthal disclose a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by processing circuitry of one or more servers, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations (Freudenthal disclose a system comprising computing system 200 with non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that are executed by processing circuitry of one or more servers; figs. 1-2 & 14, #206, #1402, [0050, 0059-0069]) comprising:
storing, in a memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (Freudenthal disclose the memory comprises instructions for a filling apparatus 1200 and operation of a thermal cycler scheduler; figs. 12-13, [0112-0123]. A scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose computing system 200 as a computer, server, client, desktop, laptop, tablet, etc. and comprises user interface 122 for communicating information and command selections to the processor on control system 120, and a web-based scheduling interface 1406, which may be displayed on another computing system, connected to the instrument that communicates with a processor of the instrument; figs. 1, 5-8 & 14-17, [0058-0059, 0062, 0089-0092, 0124-0130]), a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose instructions are sent and received as a data file by the scheduler 1400 to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler to perform applications on batches of samples; figs. 1-2, 5-7, and 12-17, [0060, 0063-0066, 0068-0069, 0071, 0113-0123]) and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]);
receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (Freudenthal; figs. 14-17, [0124-0130]);
receiving, from a first scientific device in the first laboratory, a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset to process a batch, wherein the laboratory application includes a first part and a second part and the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose computing system 200 as a computer, server, client, desktop, laptop, tablet, etc. and comprises user interface 122 for communicating information and command selections to the processor on control system 120, and a web-based scheduling interface 1406, which may be displayed on another computing system, connected to the instrument that communicates with a processor of the instrument; figs. 1, 5-8 & 14-17, [0058-0059, 0062, 0089-0092, 0124-0130]. Instructions are sent and received as a data file by the scheduler 1400 to the filling apparatus (first scientific device) to process a batch of samples and thermal cycler (second scientific device) to perform applications on batches of samples; figs. 1-2, 5-7, and 12-17, [0060, 0063-0066, 0068-0069, 0071, 0113-0123]);
identifying one or more laboratory applications compatible with the first scientific device (Freudenthal disclose the data file 1212 comprising instructions including assay definitions, sample location definitions, and positional mapping instructions; [0114]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
providing, in response to the request, the compatible one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using the first scientific device (Freudenthal; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
receiving, from the first scientific device, a selected laboratory application from the compatible one or more laboratory applications (Freudenthal disclose the data file 1212 comprising instructions including assay definitions, sample location definitions, and positional mapping instructions; [0114]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]);
receiving, from the first scientific device, a result signal indicating whether executing at least the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch was successful (Freudenthal disclose after loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
updating, based on the result signal, a batch status for the batch of samples to indicate completion of the first part of the selected laboratory application (Freudenthal disclose after loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
transmitting, based on the batch status, to a second scientific device, a second control signal for executing the second part of the selected laboratory application (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]); and
wherein the result signal indicates that the first part of the selected batch was successful (Freudenthal; fig. 13, step 1360, [0121]), the operations further comprising:
running, based on the updated batch status, the second part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch at a second scientific device, wherein the second scientific device is selected, by the user, from the one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory and the second scientific device is different from the first scientific device (Freudenthal; fig. 13, step 1360, [0121]).
Regarding claim 14, Freudenthal disclose the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 13 above, the operations further comprising: receiving, from a lab operator client device, an operator configuration for the selected laboratory application, wherein the control signal is for executing the at least the first part of the selected laboratory application in accordance with the admin configuration and the operator configuration (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]).
Regarding claim 15, Freudenthal disclose a method implemented at one or more servers (Freudenthal disclose a system and method comprising computing system 200 with servers storing instructions that are executed by processing circuitry of one or more servers; figs. 1-2 & 14, #206, #1402, [0050, 0059-0069]), the method comprising:
storing, in a memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (Freudenthal disclose the memory comprises instructions for a filling apparatus 1200 and operation of a thermal cycler scheduler; figs. 12-13, [0112-0123]. A scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose computing system 200 as a computer, server, client, desktop, laptop, tablet, etc. and comprises user interface 122 for communicating information and command selections to the processor on control system 120, and a web-based scheduling interface 1406, which may be displayed on another computing system, connected to the instrument that communicates with a processor of the instrument; figs. 1, 5-8 & 14-17, [0058-0059, 0062, 0089-0092, 0124-0130]), a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose instructions are sent and received as a data file by the scheduler 1400 to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler to perform applications on batches of samples; figs. 1-2, 5-7, and 12-17, [0060, 0063-0066, 0068-0069, 0071, 0113-0123]) and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]);
receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (Freudenthal; figs. 14-17, [0124-0130]);
receiving, from a first scientific device in the first laboratory, a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset to process a batch, wherein the laboratory application includes a first part and a second part and the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (Freudenthal disclose computing system 200 as a computer, server, client, desktop, laptop, tablet, etc. and comprises user interface 122 for communicating information and command selections to the processor on control system 120, and a web-based scheduling interface 1406, which may be displayed on another computing system, connected to the instrument that communicates with a processor of the instrument; figs. 1, 5-8 & 14-17, [0058-0059, 0062, 0089-0092, 0124-0130]. Instructions are sent and received as a data file by the scheduler 1400 to the filling apparatus (first scientific device) to process a batch of samples and thermal cycler (second scientific device) to perform applications on batches of samples; figs. 1-2, 5-7, and 12-17, [0060, 0063-0066, 0068-0069, 0071, 0113-0123]);
identifying one or more laboratory applications compatible with the first scientific device (Freudenthal disclose the data file 1212 comprising instructions including assay definitions, sample location definitions, and positional mapping instructions; [0114]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
providing, in response to the request, the compatible one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using the first scientific device (Freudenthal; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
receiving, from the first scientific device, a selected laboratory application from the compatible one or more laboratory applications (Freudenthal disclose the data file 1212 comprising instructions including assay definitions, sample location definitions, and positional mapping instructions; [0114]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]);
receiving, from the first scientific device, a result signal indicating whether executing at least the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch was successful (Freudenthal disclose after loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
updating, based on the result signal, a batch status for the batch of samples to indicate completion of the first part of the selected laboratory application (Freudenthal disclose after loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]);
transmitting, based on the batch status, to a second scientific device, a second control signal for executing the second part of the selected laboratory application (Freudenthal disclose the scheduler 1400 is used to reserve time to perform experiments or testing, and includes a memory 1402 for storing scheduling data and instructions executable by a processor for receiving and updating the schedule; fig. 14, [0124]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]); and
wherein the result signal indicates that the first part of the selected batch was successful, the operations (Freudenthal; fig. 13, step 1360, [0121]) further comprising:
running, based on the updated batch status, the second part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch at a second scientific device, wherein the second scientific device is selected, by the user, from the one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory and the second scientific device is different from the first scientific device (Freudenthal; fig. 13, step 1360, [0121]).
Regarding claim 17, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the operations further comprise: identifying at least one incompatible laboratory application from the set of laboratory applications; and suggesting to the user to address the incompatibility (Freudenthal disclose in step 1350 the processor/control system makes an error determination regarding the compatibility of the chosen protocol with the loaded samples. If there is an error the processor/control system is programmed to deliver an error message to the user as to type of error observed. The error may be a missing data or experimental file, an incomplete data or experimental file, or detected difference between assay definition in the data or experimental file and assay definition actually in the through-holes; [0120]).
Regarding claim 18, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 17 above, wherein addressing the incompatibility comprises updating the software of the first scientific device (Freudenthal disclose in step 1350 the processor/control system makes an error determination regarding the compatibility of the chosen protocol with the loaded samples. If there is an error the processor/control system is programmed to deliver an error message to the user as to type of error observed. The error may be a missing data or experimental file, an incomplete data or experimental file, or detected difference between assay definition in the data or experimental file and assay definition actually in the through-holes; [0120]. Accordingly, missing, incomplete, or a difference in data/files, can be addressed by updating the software via the network interface [0062, 0065-0068, 0126]).
Regarding claim 19, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the operations further comprise: after identifying one or more laboratory applications compatible with the first scientific device, downloading, to the first scientific device, a portion of at least one of the one or more compatible laboratory applications (Freudenthal disclose computing system 200 receives information or updates from the distributed network, and communications interface 218 for software and data transfer between devices [0062, 0065-0068, 0126]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freudenthal, and further in view of Hren et al. (US 2015/0100155; already of record – hereinafter “Hren”).
Regarding claim 6, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the set of laboratory applications comprises applications (Freudenthal; “experiments or testing”, [0119-0120, 0124, 0127-0128]), the operations further comprising: receiving, from a second lab administrator client device (Freudenthal disclose computing system 200 as a computer, server, client, desktop, laptop, tablet, etc. and comprises user interface 122 for communicating information and command selections to the processor on control system 120, and a web-based scheduling interface 1406, which may be displayed on another computing system, connected to the instrument that communicates with a processor of the instrument; figs. 1, 5-8 & 14-17, [0058-0059, 0062, 0089-0092, 0124-0130]), a selection of a second subset of the selected laboratory applications and a second admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the second subset (Freudenthal; “experiments or testing”, [0119-0120, 0124, 0127-0128]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]), wherein the second subset is different from the first subset (Freudenthal; “experiments or testing”, [0119-0120, 0124, 0127-0128]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]), and wherein the second admin configuration is different from the admin configuration received from the first lab administrator client device (Freudenthal; “experiments or testing”, [0119-0120, 0124, 0127-0128]. The data file provided to the filling apparatus and thermal cycler is comprised of instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]).
Freudenthal does teach multiple different laboratories or a second laboratory.
However, Hren teach the analogous art of a system (Hren disclose a liquid handling system 100; fig. 1, [0021]) comprising: processing circuitry of one or more servers (Hren; processor 808 for server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058]); and a memory in communication with the processing circuitry (Hren; computer readable medium 806 and database 812 of server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058]), the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (Hren; database 812 may save, access, and retrieve protocol creation applications 712/810; figs. 7-8, [0063]), and a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067]. When a user selects button 1006 “Manage qPCR analyses”, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 15 that allows the user to search, edit, or create files containing information for analyzing samples according to a protocol; figs. 14-26, [0078-0118]. When a user selects button 1008 “Create new qPCR experiment” or save button 2308 shown in fig. 23 after creating a new analysis, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 26 that allows the user to select batches of samples using button 2816 or button 2820 to be processed according to the selected protocol; figs. 26-36; [0119-0170]), wherein the laboratory applications comprise applications for multiple different laboratories and a second laboratory (Hren; [0021, 0024-0025, 0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Freudenthal with the system comprising multiple different locations, as taught by Hren, because Hren teach the system comprising multiple different locations allows the system to be implemented in a variety of industries including pharmaceutical, gnomic, proteomic research, drug develop, clinical laboratories, diagnostic laboratories, and biotechnology applications; [0024]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Freudenthal and Hren both teach systems for performing a plurality of assays on a sample for multiple users.
Regarding claim 10, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 1 above.
Freudenthal does not teach the operations further comprising: setting a production status of at least one laboratory application to in-production, wherein laboratory applications that are in-production are accessible to both the lab administrator and lab operators, and wherein laboratory applications that are not in-production are accessible to the lab administrator and not accessible to lab operators.
However, Hren disclose a system (Hren disclose a liquid handling system 100; fig. 1, [0021]) comprising: processing circuitry of one or more servers (Hren; processor 808 for server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058]); and a memory in communication with the processing circuitry (Hren; computer readable medium 806 and database 812 of server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058]), the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (Hren; database 812 may save, access, and retrieve protocol creation applications 712/810; figs. 7-8, [0063]), wherein the operations further comprising: setting a production status of at least one laboratory application to in-production (Hren; fig. 16, #1512, “Ready”, [0080]), wherein laboratory applications that are in-production are accessible to both the lab administrator and lab operators (Hren; [0080]), and wherein laboratory applications that are not in-production are accessible to the lab administrator and not accessible to lab operators (Hren; fig. 16, #1512, “In editing”, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operations of Freudenthal to further comprise setting a production status, as taught by Hren, because Hren teach setting the production status notifies other users whether an analysis is ready or in editing (Hren; [0080]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Freudenthal and Hren both teach systems for performing a plurality of assays on a sample for multiple users.
Regarding claim 16, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 1 above.
Freudenthal does not teach wherein the operations further comprise: identifying at least one incompatible laboratory application from the set of laboratory applications; and causing the at least one incompatible laboratory application to be hidden from the user.
However, Hren disclose the analogous art of a system (Hren disclose a liquid handling system 100; fig. 1, [0021]) comprising: processing circuitry of one or more servers (Hren; processor 808 for server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058]); and a memory in communication with the processing circuitry (Hren; computer readable medium 806 and database 812 of server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058]), the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (Hren; database 812 may save, access, and retrieve protocol creation applications 712/810; figs. 7-8, [0063]), wherein the operations further comprise a user interface search window 1514 configured to filter laboratory applicants and hide incompatible applications/devices (Hren; figs. 15 & , [0081, 0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system software of Freudenthal to comprise a search window to filter laboratory applications and devices, as taught by Hren, because Hren teach the search window allows a user to quicky locate a qPCR analysis of interest (Hren; [0081]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Freudenthal and Hren both teach systems and instructions for performing assays on a sample with automated equipment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freudenthal, and further in view of Hren et al. (US 2015/0100155; already of record – hereinafter “Hren”).
Regarding claim 12, Freudenthal disclose the system of claim 11 above.
Freudenthal does not teach wherein identifying the sample comprises applying optical character recognition (OCR) to at least a portion of the scan.
However, Dockrill teach the analogous art of a system (Dockrill; fig. 1, #12, [0052]) comprising one or more scientific devices (Dockrill; fig. 1, #10, [0052]) configured to run a laboratory application to process samples (Dockrill disclose instructions for a controller to treat samples; [0067]) wherein the system is configured to run the laboratory application to process the sample comprises at least a scan of a container of a sample, the operations further comprising: identifying the sample based on the scan (Dockrill disclose an indicia reader 44 which is disposed on the scientific device 10 and configured to read labels disposed on the sample container to receive information indicative of instructions for the controller to treat the sample; fig. 7, [0067]), wherein identifying the sample comprises applying optical character recognition (OCR) to at least a portion of the scan (Dockrill teach the indicia reader applies optical character recognition; [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sample container and system of Hren to comprise a label and indicia reader, as in Dockrill, because Dockrill teach the label and indicia reader allow the scientific device to perform the laboratory application to process the sample based on instructions received from the label (Dockrill; [0067]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Hren and Dockrill both teach scientific devices configured to process a batch of samples.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 13 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/355,119 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 18/355,119 disclose:
Regarding claim 1, 18/355,119 disclose a system/non-transitory machine-readable medium/method (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14) comprising:
processing circuitry of one or more servers (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14); and
a memory in communication with the processing circuitry, the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14):
storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14);
receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14);
receiving, from a first scientific device in the first laboratory, a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset to process a batch, wherein the laboratory application includes a first part and a second part and the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14);
identifying one or more laboratory applications compatible with the first scientific device (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14, “that are capable”);
providing, in response to the request, the compatible one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using the first scientific device (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14);
receiving, from the first scientific device, a selected laboratory application from the compatible one or more laboratory applications (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14);
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14);
receiving, from the first scientific device, a result signal indicating whether executing at least the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch was successful (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14);
updating, based on the result signal, a batch status for the batch of samples to indicate completion of the first part of the selected laboratory application (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14);
transmitting, based on the batch status, to a second scientific device, a second control signal for executing the second part of the selected laboratory application (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14); and
wherein the result signal indicates that the first part of the selected batch was successful, the operations further comprising (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14):
running, based on the updated batch status, the second part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch at a second scientific device, wherein the second scientific device is selected, by the user, from the one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory and the second scientific device is different from the first scientific device (18/355,119 – Claims 1, 13 and 14).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/26/2026, have been considered but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. However, because the examiner is using the same prior art in the rejection, then the examiner will address applicant’s remarks in order to promote compact prosecution.
Applicant argues, see pages 8-11 of their remarks, towards Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 rejection, that claims 1,13, and 15 as a while are not abstract idea(s), and are suited to solve the technological problem of reducing errors and increasing efficiency in performing protocols at scientific devices by identifying applications that are incompatible with the current lab configuration, and either hide those applications [or] suggest how to address that problem. Applicant further argues that the result signal from the first scientific device is used to update an operational state of a physical batch of samples, and is therefore not an incidental data field, but rather used to coordinate subsequent processing of that same batch.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of the recited operations is an abstract concept that is in the grouping of “mental process” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)) because identifying applications that are compatible with a scientific device could be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, or judgement, and the use of a computer does not preclude these concepts from being an abstract concept. Specifically, a user could, in their mind, look at the software version running on a scientific device and identify compatible or incompatible applications based on a current lab configuration. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. Further, the processing circuitry to perform the recited steps/processes is simply a general-purpose computer for which to apply the abstract ideas, but does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of their remarks towards step 2A prong 1 of the 101 rejection that the claim is not directed merely to collecting, storing, or displaying information, but rather the claim uses information generated by a scientific device to control the progression of a physical laboratory workflow. Applicant argues the result signal is not merely information for observation or mental evaluation, it is used to update an operational state of a physical batch of samples, and that operational state governs subsequent execution of the laboratory application.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations “updating, based on the result signal, … and running, based on the updated batch status…”, as well as the additional elements recited in the claim, are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea to the field of use and insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception). The claim is generally a device with processing circuitry that filters incompatible protocols/applications, and tracks the status of a batch of samples where many laboratory devices with software and processing circuitry would perform these functions. See for example Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937, where limiting a database index to XML tags, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754, where consulting and updating an activity log, and In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), where testing a system for a response and the response was used to determine a system malfunction were deemed mere data gathering as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2105.05(g). The laboratory devices and batches of samples are merely linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, but does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451. MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) is clear “The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art," Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that "‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133).”.
Regarding applicant’s argument on pages 10-11 that the computing efficiencies are improved by tracking statuses, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvement seems to be the abstract idea itself and the alleged improvement cannot be the abstract idea, but must be in a particular technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a), paragraphs 4 - 7. Further, the alleged improvement must be in a particular technology, and in this case the claims essentially recite a memory and processor, which is a general purpose computer. The processor and memory (i.e. computer) are not used outside their normal capacity and the computer does not appear to be improved in any way. A general purpose computer is not a particular machine, and performing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(b)I discusses why the antenna was considered particular (included details such as shape of the antenna, length, conductors, etc.) and why a Fourdrinier machine was particular. Even if a laboratory was recited, which it does not appear to be, the laboratory is still used in its conventional manner and is not transformed into anything different and therefore there is no improvement in the laboratory itself.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 of their remarks towards step 2B of the 101 rejection that a showing of the additional elements as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the lack of novelty under § 102 is not by itself sufficient to establish that that additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the relevant field, and that Hren and Fava are improper to cite for showing the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant further argues the communication between the scientific devices and the network as described in the claims adds functionality not present in prior systems.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2B of the 101 rejection provides at least two citations to prior art publications which disclose the additional elements of the claimed invention dating back to July 31, 2014. The plurality of references show the additional elements are well-known, routine, and conventional in the field of endeavor. Further, updating a batch status and executing a laboratory application on a batch of samples that has been previously partially process provides no technical improvements as Freudenthal disclose a data file provided to a filling apparatus and thermal cycler which comprises instructions/admin configuration for defining an assay to be performed, location of samples, sample location definitions, etc.; [0020-0021]. After loading a plurality of samples into wells of a respective sample holder, the data file 1212 received by filling station 1200 is modified to include the initially provided assay definitions in combination with updated sample and positional locations after sample loading. The modified data file 1218 is delivered to the thermal cycler and errors and/or compatibility is checked; figs. 12-13, [0117, 0120-0121]). Accordingly, the additional functionality recited in the amended claims does not provide a technical improvement.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-17 of their remarks, towards the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103, with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 6-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
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 CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights