Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-12 being examined, and claims 13-16 and 18-20 deemed withdrawn. Claim 21 is newly added, and is pending and examined. Claim 17 is canceled.
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection and previous 101 rejection have been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “at least one resource identifier” in at least claim 2 has been interpreted as any tangible or intangible object that can be used to identify a resource, e.g. a marking, code, number, name, etc.
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 1-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for the claims is shown below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 1
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a method, which is a statutory category.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong One
In Step 2A Prong One, it is determined if the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising determining based at least partly on identification information associated with at least one multimode consumable, a plurality of assays to be performed, determining at least one resource requirement for each assay, generating an initial resource schedule for each assay based at least partly on the at least one resource requirement, the schedule enabling each assay to be performed substantially simultaneously, identifying a conflict between the initial resource schedule and a resource item schedule for a resource item scheduled to perform one of the assays, and updating the resource schedule based upon a time tolerance for the at least one multimode consumable and the resource item, where the time tolerance is a time range where the at least one multimode consumable can tolerate the assay being performed by the resource item. The limitations of determining a plurality of assays to be performed, determining at least one resource requirement for each assay, and generating a resource schedule for each assay based on the determined resource requirement(s) to enable each assay to be performed substantially simultaneously are each evaluation/determination-type mental processes, which are abstract ideas. These evaluations and determinations can be done mentally, and are therefore abstract ideas. Further, the acts of identifying a conflict between an initial resource schedule and a resource item schedule, and updating a resource schedule based upon time tolerances for the at least one multimode consumable and the resource item are each evaluation/determination-type mental processes, which are abstract ideas. These evaluations and determinations can be done mentally, and are therefore abstract ideas. Further, although the recited abstract ideas are performed by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, and claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer, particularly as the claimed computer is a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong Two
In step 2A Prong Two, it is determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 1 further recites: i) receiving identification information associated with at least one multimode consumable. The dependent claims also recite: ii) further details about what the initial resource schedule comprises (claims 2-5), iii) further details about what the multimode consumable is (claim 6), iv) receiving at least one resource item request associated with a first assay of the plurality of assays (claim 7), v) comparing the at least one resource item request with the initial resource schedule, and determining an availability of the at least one resource item based on the comparison (claim 8), vi) updating the initial resource schedule based on determining that the at least one resource item is available (claim 9), vii) comparing timing information in the at least one resource item request with timing information in the initial resource schedule based on determining that the at least one resource item is unavailable (claim 10), viii) further details on how the timing information is compared by comparing a priority of the use period of the respective at least one resource item in the initial resource schedule with the use period of the respective at least one resource item in the at least one resource item request (claim 11), ix) updating the initial resource schedule based on the comparison of the timing information in the at least one resource item request with timing information in the initial resource schedule based on determining that the at least one resource item is unavailable (claim 12), and x) the equipment that is used to perform at least some of the plurality of assays. Other than limitations i), iv), and x), the additional limitations merely further describe the limitations already present in the independent claims, and do not recite additional features. The recited limitations do not actually apply the mental process-type abstract idea judicial exceptions into a practical application. Rather, the determination and evaluation steps are recited at a high level of generality. Further, limitation i) merely states how the identification information is obtained, in order to perform the subsequent determination and evaluation steps, limitation iv) merely states how the at least one resource item request is obtained, in order to perform the subsequent comparison of the at least one resource item request with the initial resource item request, and limitation x) merely states how the assays are to be performed, i.e. what general equipment is used to perform the plurality of assays. Limitation x) in particular is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity, and amounts to a recitation of the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Still further, implementing the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2B
In step 2B, it is determined if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims recite at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, a multimode test card, and one or more of a pump, a valve, a temperature element, a light element, or a sensor. These generically recited elements are nothing more than a well-understood, routine, and conventional component that is well-known in the art, particularly as all claims have been rejected over the prior art. Further, the application of these mental processes into a laboratory environment for performing assays is nothing more than generally linking the mental process judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(e). Still further, the act of factoring in a time tolerance for at least one multimode consumable and a resource item in order to update a resource schedule for performing a plurality of assays is nothing more than an improvement that further refines the abstract ideas previously set forth related to evaluation/determination-type mental processes for scheduling assays, and is not an improvement to technology. Rather, the improvement is to the abstract idea-type judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)-"it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology."
Further, with regards to the generically recited at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, multimode test card, and one or more of a pump, a valve, a temperature element, a light element, or a sensor being nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional components that are well-known in the art, the following prior art is relied upon to show that the above elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Kleinemolen et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0088583; hereinafter Kleinemolen; already of record) teaches a multimode test card ([0046], [0117], see Fig. 2 at assay device 150, which is in the shape of a card, and is capable of performing multiple assays simultaneously).
Jost et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0080949; hereinafter Jost; already of record) teaches one or more of a pump, a valve, a temperature element, a light element, or a sensor ([0026], [0034], [0048]), and at least one processor in communication with at least one memory ([0174]).
Bowers et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0303066; hereinafter Bowers; already of record) teaches at least one processor in communication with at least one memory ([0009]).
Claims 2-12 and 21 are rejected as depending on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 without including additional elements sufficient to make the claims subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers in view of Bernstein et al. (US Pat. No. 5,696,887; hereinafter Bernstein).
Regarding claim 1, Bowers discloses a method of performing assays implemented by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory ([0009], see Fig. 10). The method comprises:
receiving identification information associated with at least one multimode consumable ([0102]-[0103], see Fig. 10, particularly at step 1016, which states that samples can have multiple assays run thereon, i.e. the samples are multimode consumables. Further, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the rack of samples could also be considered a multimode consumable).
Determining, based at least in part, on the identification information, a plurality of assays to be performed ([0102]-[0103], see Fig. 10 at step 1016).
Determining at least one resource requirement for each assay of the plurality of assays (see Fig. 10 at step 1032).
generating an initial resource schedule for each assay based, at least in part, on the at least one determined resource requirement, the initial resource schedule enabling each assay of the plurality of assays to be performed substantially simultaneously ([0109]-[0110], see Fig. 10 at steps 1036, 1044, see also Fig. 11). Bowers fails to explicitly disclose:
identifying a conflict between the initial resource schedule and a resource item schedule for a resource item scheduled to perform an assay of the plurality of assays; and
causing the plurality of assays to be performed according to an updated resource schedule, the updated resource schedule comprising a rescheduled time for the resource item to perform the assay based upon a time tolerance for the at least one multimode consumable and the resource item, the time tolerance indicating a time range in which the at least one multimode consumable can tolerate the assay being performed by the resource item.
Bernstein is in the analogous field of performing assays using automated analysis (Bernstein Col. 1 Lns. 17-20). Bernstein teaches identifying a conflict between an initial resource schedule and a resource item schedule for a resource item scheduled to perform an assay of a plurality of assays , and causing the plurality of assays to be performed according to an updated resource schedule, the updated resource schedule comprising a rescheduled time for the resource item to perform the assay based upon a time tolerance for a consumable and a resource item, the time tolerance including a time range in which the consumable can tolerate the assay being performed by the resource item (Bernstein; see Table 9 at Col. 9, Col. 9 Ln. 60- Col. 10 Ln. 67, particularly at Col. 10 Lns. 29-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Bowers with the teaching of Bernstein so that the method comprises identifying a conflict between the initial resource schedule and a resource item schedule for a resource item scheduled to perform an assay of the plurality of assays, and causing the plurality of assays to be performed according to an updated resource schedule, the updated resource schedule comprising a rescheduled time for the resource item to perform the assay based upon a time tolerance for the at least one multimode consumable and the resource item, the time tolerance indicating a time range in which the at least one multimode consumable can tolerate the assay being performed by the resource item, as Bernstein teaches that updating a resource schedule based upon time tolerances for each consumable can minimize the time necessary to complete multiple tasks (Bernstein; see Table 9 at Col. 9, Col. 9 Ln. 60- Col. 10 Ln. 67).
Regarding claim 2, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 1. Bowers further discloses that the initial resource schedule comprises:
at least one resource identifier associated with at least one resource item (Bowers; [0112], [0131], see Figs. 11, 13, and Table 5 below [0116]); and
timing information associated with the at least one resource item (Bowers; [0112], [0131], see Figs. 11, 13, and Table 5 below [0116]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 2. Modified Bowers further discloses that the timing information comprises one or more of:
a use period of the at least one resource item (Bowers; [0112], [0131], see Figs. 11, 13, and Table 5 below [0116]).
A tolerance associated with the use period (see Claim 1 above at Bernstein teaching a timing tolerance in Table 9 at Col. 9, Col. 9 Ln. 60- Col. 10 Ln. 67).
A priority associated with the use period of the at least one resource item (Bowers; [0105], [0108]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 3. Bowers further discloses that the use period comprises one or more of:
a start time; an end time; and a resource item use duration (Bowers; [0112], [0131], see Figs. 11, 13, and Table 5 below [0116], particularly at Fig. 11, which shows a start time, an end time, and a resource item use duration).
Regarding claim 5, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 2. Bowers further discloses that the at least one resource item is a hardware resource of an assay system (Bowers [0112]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 1. Bowers further discloses receiving at least one resource item request associated with a first assay of the plurality of assays, the at least one resource item request comprising:
at least one resource identifier associated with at least one resource item (Bowers; [0114]-[0118], see also Table 5 below [0116], and Fig. 12).
Timing information associated with the at least one resource item (Bowers; [0114]-[0118], see also Table 5 below [0116], and Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 8, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 7. Bowers further discloses:
comparing the at least one resource item request with the initial resource schedule; and
determining, based at least in part on the comparing, an availability of the at least one resource item (Bowers; [0114]-[0118], see also Table 5 below [0116], and Fig. 12. See also [0119], which states that the application determines an order or performance of assays or assay steps based on the samples received, assays ordered, availability of resources, and operation states of electronic instruments).
Regarding claim 9, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 8. Bowers further discloses updating the initial resource schedule based, at least in part, on the determination that the at least one resource item is available (Bowers; [0114]-[0118], see also Table 5 below [0116], and Fig. 12. See also [0119], which states that the application determines an order or performance of assays or assay steps based on the samples received, assays ordered, availability of resources, and operation states of electronic instruments).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 8. Bowers further discloses comparing timing information in the at least one resource item request with timing information in the initial resource schedule based, at least in part, on a determination that the at least one resource item is not available (Bowers; [0114]-[0118], see also Table 5 below [0116], and Fig. 12. See also [0119], which states that the application determines an order or performance of assays or assay steps based on the samples received, assays ordered, availability of resources, and operation states of electronic instruments).
Regarding claim 11, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 10. Bowers further discloses comparing timing information in the at least one resource item request with timing information in the initial resource schedule comprises:
comparing a priority associated with the use period of the at least one resource item in the initial request resource schedule with a priority associated with the use period of the at least one resource item in the at least one resource item request (Bowers; [0114]-[0118], see also Table 5 below [0116], and Fig. 12. See also [0119], which states that the application determines an order or performance of assays or assay steps based on the samples received, assays ordered, availability of resources, and operation states of electronic instruments. See also [0105], which states that the assay instruction for a sample may include a priority of the assays to be performed).
Regarding claim 12, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 10. Bowers further discloses updating the initial resource schedule based, at least in part, on the comparing the timing information in the at least one resource item request with the timing information in the initial resource schedule (Bowers; [0114]-[0118], see also Table 5 below [0116], and Fig. 12. See also [0119], which states that the application determines an order or performance of assays or assay steps based on the samples received, assays ordered, availability of resources, and operation states of electronic instruments).
Regarding claim 21, modified Bowers discloses the method of Claim 1. Bowers further discloses that causing the plurality of assays to be performed further comprises causing one or more of a pump, a valve, a temperature element, a light element, or a sensor to perform at least some of the plurality of assays (Bowers [0045]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers in view of Bernstein, as applied to claims 1-5, 7-12, and 21 above, in view of Kleinemolen.
Regarding claim 6, modified Bowers discloses the method of claim 1.
Modified Bowers fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one multimode consumable is a multimode test card.
Kleinemolen is in the analogous field of assay devices and methods of using the devices (Kleinemolen [0004]-[0006]). Kleinemolen teaches a multimode test card (Kleinemolen; [0046], [0117], see Fig. 2 at assay device 150, which is in the shape of a card, and is capable of performing multiple assays simultaneously). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Bowers with the teachings of Kleinemolen so that the at least one multimode consumable is a multimode test card, as Kleinemolen teaches that a multimode test card can perform multiple assays simultaneously (Kleinemolen; [0046], [0117], see Fig. 2), and would therefore benefit from the teachings of Bowers, which is directed towards determining an order of performance of assays in a system to maximize a performance metric and/or prioritize special orders (see Bowers at Fig. 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 7-10 of their Remarks that the claims are should not have been rejected under 35 USC 101, as the claims are directed to the improvement of technology, and therefore the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea-type judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant goes on to cite various portions of the instant Specification to corroborate that the claims integrate the abstract idea-type judicial exception into a practical application by providing an improvement to the technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rather than the claims reflecting an improvement of technology, the limitations in the claims that are directed to updating a resource schedule to comprise a rescheduled time for a resource item to perform an assay based on a time tolerance comprising a time range where a consumable can tolerate the assay being performed, only serve to further refine the mental process-type abstract idea of scheduling assays- see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)-"it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." Therefore, the claims do not sufficiently integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to be considered eligible subject matter. For a more detailed explanation, please see the Claim Rejections-35 USC 101 section of this instant Office Action.
Further, regarding Applicant’s arguments on Pgs. 10-12 of their Remarks that the prior art of record, particularly Bowers, does not teach the amendments to the claims of identifying a conflict and updating a resource schedule comprising a rescheduled time based upon a time tolerance, these arguments have been considered but are moot because applicant' s arguments are towards the amended claims and not the current grounds of rejection. These limitations have been rejected using Bernstein. For a more detailed explanation, please see the rejection of Claim 1 in the Claim Rejections-35 USC 103 section of this instant Office Action. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights