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. Status of Claims The action is in reply to the application filed 2022 August 23 . Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 08/23/2022 & 03/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Priority While a certified copy of the foreign priority document has been received as required by 37 CFR 1.55, it is not in English. An English translation as well as a statement that the translation is accurate is required for the foreign priority document. See 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(3)(iii) & 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(4). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the Korean application. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non- structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim 1 recites the following: “ a receiving unit …. receiving ” “ a monitoring unit … calculating ” “ a predicting unit … predicting ” “ a generating unit … generating ” Claim 2 recites the following: “ an emergency processing unit … processing…compares ” Claim 4 recites the following: “ monitoring unit … calculates ” Claim 5 recites the following: “ monitoring unit … detects ” Claim 6 recites the following: “ monitoring unit … determines ” Claim 7 recites the following: “ predicting unit … predicts ” Claim 10 recites the following: “ generating unit … generates ” which are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), sixth paragraph. The limitations create a rebuttable presumption that the claim elements are to be treated under § 112(f) based on the use of the word “means” or generic place holder ( underlined ) with functional language (in italics ). The presumption is not rebutted because the limitations do not recite sufficient structure in the claim to perform the functions. When § 112(f) is invoked the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is restricted to the structure in the disclosure and its equivalents. the following functional claim limitations: Of claim 1 recites the following: “ a receiving unit …. receiving ” recite non-specialized computer functions that can be accomplished by any general purpose computer (e.g., any general purpose computer can receive, convert, and/or display data, etc.), and as such an algorithm is not required to be described in the specification to support an adequate disclosure of the limitations. However, the following functional claim limitations: Of claim 1 recites the following: “ a monitoring unit … calculating ” “ a predicting unit … predicting ” “ a generating unit … generating ” Of claim 2 recites the following: “ an emergency processing unit … processing…compares ” Of claim 4 recites the following: “ monitoring unit … calculates ” Of claim 5 recites the following: “ monitoring unit … detects ” Of claim 6 recites the following: “ monitoring unit … determines ” Of claim 7 recites the following: “ predicting unit … predicts ” Of claim 10 recites the following: “ generating unit … predicts ” recite specialized computer functions. A function performed by a programmed computer requires both the computer and the algorithm that causes the computer to perform the function. As such, a disclosure of an algorithm to perform these functions and to transform a general purpose computer into a programmed computer is required. Examiner notes that the specification is not clear in providing the specific algorithm and corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the function of the sorting mechanism. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure/algorithm, applicant must identify the corresponding structure/algorithm with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention 2. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim elements “a monitoring unit”, “a predicting unit”, “an emergency processing unit”, and “a generating unit” are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Programmed computer functions require a computer programmed with an “algorithm” to perform the function. Because “a monitoring unit”, “a predicting unit”, “an emergency processing unit”, and “a generating unit” relate to specific functions that must be performed by a special purpose computer, the supporting specification must specifically identify the structure (including an algorithm for specialized functions) that performs the claimed functions of the above-mentioned claim elements. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181 . Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 2 & 12 recite the limitation " the patient's specimen”. It is not clear if the patient specimen is referring to the emergency-requested specimen in claim 2 or the specimen from claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims contain the recitation of “a monitoring unit”, “a predicting unit”, “an emergency processing unit”, and “a generating unit.” However, applicant’s specification describes no particular manner in how exactly the monitoring unit performs the calculating, how the predicting unit performs the predicting, how the generating unit generates, how the emergency unit processes and compares, and how monitoring unit performs a detection and determination. MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Accordingly, a rejection for lack of written description is necessary. 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. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of the patent eligible subject matter because the broadest interpretation of recording medium of claim 21 encompasses signals per se. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1 The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine ( claims 1-10 ) and a process ( claims 11-20 ). INDEPENDENT CLAIMS Step 2A Prong 1 Claim 1 recites steps of A test control device, comprising: a receiving unit receiving operation information from a hospital information system (HIS) and a total laboratory automation system (TLA); a monitoring unit calculating per-progress step processing time information for each test performed in a laboratory based on the received operation information and monitoring a test progress process of the laboratory based on the processing time information ; a predicting unit predicting a test end time of each specimen from device state information and specimen sample information collected in real-time using a prediction model trained with the operation information updated at a predetermined period ; and a generating unit generating output information for visualizing and displaying status information about the laboratory . Claims 11 and 21 recite similar limitations as claim 1 but for recitation of generic computer components. These steps for laboratory workflow management, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people through organizing the activity around laboratory workflow management. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data. In addition, the italicized portion containing the recitation of using a prediction model trained with the operation information has been treated as mathematical calculations which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, in light of the 2024 USPTO AI Guidance. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity and mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1 and 11, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which: amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a test control device, comprising: a receiving unit; a monitoring unit; a predicting unit; and, a generating unit amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving operation information from a hospital information system (HIS) and a total laboratory automation system (TLA) amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving action performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity; and, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which: amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of a test control device, comprising: a receiving unit; a monitoring unit; a predicting unit; and, a generating unit, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank , MPEP 2106.05(f); amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of receiving operation information from a hospital information system (HIS) and a total laboratory automation system (TLA), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec , MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. DEPENDENT CLAIMS Step 2A Prong 1 Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-10 and 12-20 reciting particular aspects for managing health of laboratory workflow management such as [Claims 2 & 12] an emergency processing unit processing a sample of an emergency-requested specimen via an emergency process , wherein the emergency processing unit compares a patient's treatment time with the test end time and, upon determining that the test cannot be completed within the test time, determines to process the patient's specimen via the emergency process; [Claim 3 & 13] wherein the operation information is received at different periods depending on times when detailed information included in the operation information is generated and is stored in a table structure divided per type of the detailed information ; [Claim 4 & 14] wherein the monitoring unit calculates a mean and standard deviation of per-progress step processing times for each test during a predetermined period, compares a retention time of a sample in progress in a current step with the mean and the standard deviation, and monitors whether the test progress process corresponding to the current step has an abnormality; [Claim 5 & 15] wherein upon determining that the sample in progress in the current step falls outside a specific magnification of the standard deviation with respect to the mean calculated from specimen sample information under a same condition, the monitoring unit detects the abnormality in the test progress process corresponding to the current step; [Claim 6 & 16] wherein the monitoring unit determines a processing time (turnaround time (TAT)) of an emergency room sample based on processing time information during an entire period and per-condition limit time information and monitors the test progress process of the emergency room sample based on a result of the determination; [Claim 7 & 17] wherein the predicting unit predicts the test end time of each specimen through multivariate time series regression analysis using specific information included in the operation information as a variable; [Claim 8 & 18] wherein the prediction model is a tree-based gradient boosting model; [Claim 9 & 19] wherein the laboratory status information includes at least one piece of information among laboratory saturation information generated based on specimen quantity information requested from the laboratory, throughput information, number-of-samples-per-area information, stockyard status information, specimen lookup information, total laboratory automation (TLA) statistical information, and specimen status information; [Claim 10 & 20] wherein the generating unit further generates the output information about detection information about the abnormality in the test progress process, prediction information for predicting the test end time, and management information about the emergency room sample; these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans. Additionally, the italicized portion containing the recitation of calculates a mean and standard deviation, multivariate time regression analysis, and the prediction model being a tree-based gradient boosting model has been treated as mathematical calculations which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. Step 2A Prong 2 Dependent claims 2, 3-5, 7, 10, 12, 13-15, 17, and 20 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claims 2 & 12 ( an emergency processing unit; and, the emergency processing unit); claims 4 & 14 (the monitoring unit) ; claims 5 & 15 (monitoring unit); claims 7 & 17 (the predicting unit); and, claims 10 & 20 (the generating unit) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and, claims 3 & 13 (the operation information is received at different periods; and, is stored in a table structure divided per type of the detailed information) amounts to mere data gathering and storage since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving and storing actions performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 20 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank , MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0113] which discloses off-the-shelf memory types and [0115] which discloses off-the-shelf devices. Dependent claims 3 & 13 recite additional subject matter which amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec , MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group , MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolizes the judicial exception since it covers the fundamental, high-level process of monitoring and predicting laboratory workflows without offering a specific, technical improvement to how the computer or TLA hardware actually operates; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). 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 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Depraetere et al. (US20190324047A1) in view of Burbulla et al. (EP2602625A1) and further in view of Tatsuki ( JP2020160590A) Regarding claim 1, Depraetere discloses a receiving unit receiving operation information from a hospital information system (HIS) and a total laboratory automation system (TLA) ([0029] “The control unit may receive information from a data management unit regarding which steps need to be performed with a certain sample.” [0059] “retrieved by the control unit 20 from an internal storage (such as a database), from a laboratory information system (LIS) and/or from a user interface communicatively connected to the control unit 20 or from a hospital information system (HIS) 50.”) a monitoring unit calculating per-progress step processing time information for each test performed in a laboratory based on the received operation information ([0062] “In step 104, the control unit 20 can determine a processing workflow for processing the biological samples based on corresponding test order(s) and corresponding processing priority(s)” [0067] “the control unit 20 can predict/forecast that the at least one analytical step on the biological sample is completed and the corresponding result becomes available”) a predicting unit predicting a test end time of each specimen from device state information and specimen sample information collected in real-time ([0131] “at least one processor” [0057] “In a step 100, one of the plurality of laboratory instruments 10 of the analytical laboratory 1 can receive and identify the biological sample.” [0052] “reporting a forecast of expected time of availability of test results” [0109] “As a remedy, parameters of the forecasting algorithm can be adjusted to account for delays if a measurement needs to be validated in a time coinciding with a change of work shifts of laboratory personnel” also, see Figure 3 proceeding from Step 100 to 106 to 120 to 122.) Depraetere does not explicitly disclose however Burbulla teaches and monitoring a test progress process of the laboratory based on the processing time information ([pg. 2] “monitor a plurality of sub-processes that may be performed on test units which may be distributed throughout the clinical laboratory”) and a generating unit generating output information for visualizing and displaying status information about the laboratory ([pg. 9] “The processing unit 103 may include a processor, a microprocessor, or processing logic that may interpret and execute instructions.” [pg. 12] “Here, Fig. 10 shows a screenshot that concurrently displays the simulated progress of the diagnostic test process and the received data representing the actual progress of the diagnostic test process for the entire diagnostic test process.”) It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Depraetere monitoring a test progress process of the laboratory based on the processing time information; and, generating output information for visualizing and displaying status information about the laboratory as taught by Burbulla since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art . Depraetere in view of Burbulla does not explicitly disclose however Tatsuki teaches using a prediction model trained with the operation information updated at a predetermined period ([pg. 2] “A plurality of teacher data are acquired, and based on the acquired teacher data, the treatment information indicating the content of the recommended treatment for the patient when the first test result, the area information and the patient information are input, or the second test for the patient. It is characterized by generating a learning model that outputs a test prediction that predicts the result.” [pg. 6] “By re-learning, the learning model is updated so that more appropriate processing information can be obtained.”) Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Depraetere and Burbulla using a prediction model trained with the operation information updated at a predetermined period as taught by Tatsuki since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art . Regarding claim 11, Depraetere discloses a receiving step receiving operation information from a hospital information system (HIS) and a total laboratory automation system (TLA) ([0029] “The control unit may receive information from a data management unit regarding which steps need to be performed with a certain sample.” [0059] “retrieved by the control unit 20 from an internal storage (such as a database), from a laboratory information system (LIS) and/or from a user interface communicatively connected to the control unit 20 or from a hospital information system (HIS) 50.”) a monitoring step calculating per-progress step processing time information for each test performed in a laboratory based on the operation information ([0062] “In step 104, the control unit 20 can determine a processing workflow for processing the biological samples based on corresponding test order(s) and corresponding processing priority(s)” [0067] “the control unit 20 can predict/forecast that the at least one analytical step on the biological sample is completed and the corresponding result becomes available”) a predicting step predicting a test end time of each specimen from specimen sample information and device state information collected in real-time ([0131] “at least one processor” [0057] “In a step 100, one of the plurality of laboratory instruments 10 of the analytical laboratory 1 can receive and identify the biological sample.” [0052] “reporting a forecast of expected time of availability of test results” [0109] “As a remedy, parameters of the forecasting algorithm can be adjusted to account for delays if a measurement needs to be validated in a time coinciding with a change of work shifts of laboratory personnel” also, see Figure 3 proceeding from Step 100 to 106 to 120 to 122.) Depraetere does not explicitly disclose however Burbulla teaches and monitoring a test progress process of the laboratory based on the calculated processing time information ([pg. 2] “monitor a plurality of sub-processes that may be performed on test units which may be distributed throughout the clinical laboratory”) and a generating step generating output information for visualizing and displaying status information about the laboratory ([pg. 9] “The processing unit 103 may include a processor, a microprocessor, or processing logic that may interpret and execute instructions.” [pg. 12] “Here, Fig. 10 shows a screenshot that concurrently displays the simulated progress of the diagnostic test process and the received data representing the actual progress of the diagnostic test process for the entire diagnostic test process.”) It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Depraetere monitoring a test progress process of the laboratory based on the processing time information; and, generating output information for visualizing and displaying status information about the laboratory as taught by Burbulla since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art . Depraetere in view of Burbulla does not explicitly disclose however Tatsuki teaches using a prediction model trained with the operation information updated at a predetermined period ([pg. 2] “A plurality of teacher data are acquired, and based on the acquired teacher data, the treatment information indicating the content of the recommended treatment for the patient when the first test result, the area information and the patient information are input, or the second test for the patient. It is characterized by generating a learning model that outputs a test prediction that predicts the result.” [pg. 6] “By re-learning, the learning model is updated so that more appropriate processing information can be obtained.”) Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Depraetere and Burbulla using a prediction model trained with the operation information updated at a predetermined period as taught by Tatsuki since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art . Regarding claim 21, Depraetere discloses a recording medium storing a program for executing a test control method ([0029] “The control unit may, for instance, be embodied as a programmable logic controller running a computer-readable program provided with instructions to perform operations.”) a monitoring step calculating per-progress step processing time information for each test performed in a laboratory based on the operation information ([0062] “In step 104, the control unit 20 can determine a processing workflow for processing the biological samples based on corresponding test order(s) and corresponding processing priority(s)” [0067] “the control unit 20 can predict/forecast that the at least one analytical step on the biological sample is completed and the corresponding result becomes available”) received from a hospital information system (HIS) and a total laboratory automation system (TLA) ([0029] “The control unit may receive information from a data management unit regarding which steps need to be performed with a certain sample.” [0059] “retrieved by the control unit 20 from an internal storage (such as a database), from a laboratory information system (LIS) and/or from a user interface communicatively connected to the control unit 20 or from a hospital information system (HIS) 50.”) a predicting function predicting a test end time of each specimen from specimen sample information and device state information collected in real-time ([0131] “at least one processor” [0057] “In a step 100, one of the plurality of laboratory instruments 10 of the analytical laboratory 1 can receive and identify the biological sample.” [0052] “reporting a forecast of expected time of availability of test results” [0109] “As a remedy, parameters of the forecasting algorithm can be adjusted to account for delays if a measurement needs to be validated in a time coinciding with a change of work shifts of laboratory personnel” also, see Figure 3 proceeding from Step 100 to 106 to 120 to 122.) Depraetere does not explicitly disclose however Burbulla teaches and monitoring a test progress process of the laboratory based on the calculated processing time information ([pg. 2] “monitor a plurality of sub-processes that may be performed on test units which may be distributed throughout the clinical laboratory”) and a generating function generating output information for visualizing and displaying status information about the laboratory ([pg. 9] “The processing unit 103 may include a processor, a microprocessor, or processing logic that may interpret and execute instructions.” [pg. 12] “Here, Fig. 10 shows a screenshot that concurrently displays the simulated progress of the diagnostic test process and the received data representing the actual progress of the diagnostic test process for the entire diagnostic test process.”) It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Depraetere monitoring a test progress process of the laboratory based on the processing time information; and, generating output information for visualizing and displaying status information about the laboratory as taught by Burbulla since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art . Depraetere in view of Burbulla does not explicitly disclose however Tatsuki teaches using a prediction model trained with the operation information updated at a predetermined period ([pg. 2] “A plurality of teacher data are acquired, and based on the acquired teacher data, the treatment information indicating the content of the recommended treatment for the patient when the first test result, the area information and the patient information are input, or the second test for the patient. It is characterized by generating a learning model that outputs a test prediction that predicts the result.” [pg. 6] “By re-learning, the learning model is updated so that more appropriate processing information can be obtained.”) Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Depraetere and Burbulla using a prediction model trained with the operation information updated at a predetermined period as taught by Tatsuki since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art . No Prior Art Rejection Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20, no prior art rejection is being presented at this time. Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon Kim, Y. J., Kim, G., Kim, S., Jung, D., & Park, M. (2021). Designing optimizing procedures for task switching to ensure efficiency in the hospital laboratory. Scientific Reports , 11 (1), 12717. This reference is relevant because it conceptually discloses the applicant’s invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5349 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mamon Obeid can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1813 . 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. /WINSTON R FURTADO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3687