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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-20 of the Response dated 29 June 2026.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “system” of claims 1-13 constitutes a machine under 35 USC 101, and the “system” of claims 14-20 also constitutes a machine under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-20 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“... scientific instrument support ... , comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... acquire, for each of a plurality of scientific instrument groups, asset information associated with the scientific instrument group, the scientific instrument group including at least one scientific instrument, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... publish the asset information ... on at least one selected from a group consisting of a per instrument basis, a per instrument personal computer basis, and a per device basis; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... acquire, for each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups, reservation information associated with the scientific instrument group ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... generate, for each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups, a status card including status information associated with the scientific instrument group, wherein the status information is at least based on the asset information retrieved ... and the reservation information acquired ... and ... displaying the status cards.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as managing personal behavior, associated with following rules or instructions for reserving resources, which falls under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “acquire” and "publish" steps), and evaluation and/or judgement (e.g., the recited “generate” step), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “scientific instrument support” is provided by a “system” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
"... a server including a processor, the processor configured to: ..." - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “at least one scientific instrument” is “included in an instrument personal computer connected to one or more devices” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “publish” includes publishing “to a user application and a cache” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “acquire” includes acquiring from “a database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “retrieved” includes retrieving “from the cache” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “acquired” includes acquiring “from the database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “displaying” includes doing so by “provide a first user interface for” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated in the form of selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in an environment, for collection, analysis, and display, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding pending claims 2-13, the claims depend from independent claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein the asset information includes at least one selected from a group consisting of an instrument identifier associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a scientific instrument group identifier associated the scientific instrument group, and a network connection status associated with each scientific instrument group” of claim 2, the “wherein the status information includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a data acquisition status of an instrument included in the scientific instrument group and a plot representing the data acquisition status” of claim 3, the “wherein the asset information ... includes a change in status” of claim 4, the “wherein the reservation information includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a reservation start time, a reservation end time, a reservation name, and a reservation assignee associated with an upcoming reservation of the scientific instrument group” of claim 5, the “wherein the at least one scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group is a user-defined configuration” of claim 6, the “in response to user selection of a status card associated with a particular scientific instrument group, provide ... at least one selected from the group consisting of: a location of the scientific instrument group, a serial number associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a model number associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a firmware version associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a service status associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a service provided associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a list of notifications associated with the scientific instrument group, and a logbook associated with the scientific instrument group” of claim 7, the “wherein the logbook includes at least one logbook entry, the at least one logbook entry including at least one selected from the group consisting of: a support request, a software update, a configuration update, and a performed operation associated with a scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group” of claim 8, the “provide ... for generating a support ticket associated with a particular scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, ... including a user-selectable list of scientific instruments included in the scientific instrument group, wherein the particular scientific instrument is selected from the user-selectable list, and the support ticket includes the asset information associated with the particular scientific instrument” of claim 9, the “provide ... a reservation schedule of each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups” of claim 10, the “generate a new reservation for a user-selected scientific instrument group, the new reservation including at least one selected from the group consisting of: a reservation date, a start time, an end time, an operation, a reservation assignee, and a selection of a full reservation or partial reservation” of claim 11, the “generate a reminder notification for a reservation included in the reservation schedule for one of the plurality of scientific groups and provides the reminder notification to an assignee associated with the reservation” of claim 12, and the “selectively enable and disable modification of the reservation schedule according to user privilege” of claim 13). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “scientific instrument support system” of claims 2-13, the "acquired by the instrument listener service" and “reported by the connectivity service” of claim 4, the “second user interface, the second user interface including” of claim 7, the “third user interface ... the third user interface including” of claim 9, and the “fourth user interface, the fourth user interface including” of claim 10). Accordingly, claims 2-13 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claims 14-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-13, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-13. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-13 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 14-20. Limitations recited by claims 14-20 that do not appear to have a counterpart in claims 1-13, such as the recited “third logic” limitations of independent claim 14, include abstract idea elements similar to those of claims 1-13 (see “in response to receiving a first user selection of an unreserved time slot within the aggregated schedule of one of the plurality of scientific instrument groups ..., provide ... a plurality of indicators representing a plurality of instruments included in the one of the plurality of scientific instrument groups and based on the asset information; and in response to receiving a second user selection of one of the plurality of indicators, create a new reservation for the one of the plurality of scientific instrument groups limited to one instrument included in the one of the plurality of scientific instrument groups” of claim 14), and additional elements similar to those of claims 1-13 (see the “included in the first user interface, ... a reservation editor panel” of claim 14). Such elements lead to the same conclusions when the eligibility analysis is applied. Claims 14-20 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the instrument listener service" and the "connectivity service" in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitations were previously introduced in independent claim 1, but have been deleted from claim 1 by the Response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0267792 A1 to Mehrotra et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Mehrotra”), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0178126 A1 to Beck et al. (hereinafter referred to as "Beck"), and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0144231 A1 to Persson (hereinafter referred to as "Persson").
Regarding independent claim 1, Mehrotra discloses aspects reading on the following limitations:
“A scientific instrument support system, comprising: ...” - Mehrotra discloses, “a system for managing the use of one or more laboratories is disclosed. Each laboratory comprises one or more workbenches used by a plurality of users” (para. [0004]), “the laboratory management system provides for a variety of needs related to laboratory management. In an embodiment of the present invention, the laboratory management system manages the scheduling and use of multiple laboratories across an organization. Each laboratory can have a number of benches. A bench can be any facility that can be used for testing/validation of a product and can also be referred to as a workbench” (para. [0037]), and “Selection of one of the bench name branches 404 calls up bench summary 406. The bench summary 406 lists information about the bench including the administrative person in charge of the bench, the other projects using the bench, description of equipment available at the bench and the like” (para. [0056]). The system for managing the use of laboratories, each laboratory including one or more benches, and each bench including equipment, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
"... a server including a processor, the processor configured to: ..." - Mehrotra also discloses, "In one embodiment of the present invention and with reference to FIGS. 2a and 2b, the present invention can be implemented using client/server architecture such as computer network 200 including desktop client computers 204 and laboratory client computers 206 coupled, via a 208 network, to a server 202" (para. [0044]), and "Server 202 will preferably include a processor 230" (para. [0046]).
“... acquire, for each of a plurality of scientific instrument groups, asset information associated with the scientific instrument group, the scientific instrument group including at least one scientific instrument, the at least one scientific instrument included in an instrument personal computer connected to one or more devices, ...” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “The management system 100 comprises multiple modules, with each module performing a management function” (para. [0038]), “the present invention can be implemented using client/server architecture such as computer network 200 including desktop client computers 204 and laboratory client computers 206 coupled, via a 208 network, to a server 202” (para. [0044]), “Laboratory client computers 206 are located on individual benches in laboratories” (para. [0045]), “Server 202 can execute any number of available application programs including a web server 240 and various supporting applications including but not limited to a laboratory management application 242 in accordance with the teaching of the present invention” (para. [0046]), and "In use, an operator at either laboratory computer 206 or desktop computer 204 can, in one embodiment, access the laboratory management application 242, via a web browser 220 or similar program. The user can access any of the laboratory management program's 242 functionality from the desktop computer 204 or laboratory computer 206. For example, the user can schedule laboratory time. If the user is at a desktop or laboratory, the user can perform experiments and tests. The present invention allows the user to capture data, enter user commands, and note problems. Certain authorized users also have the ability to perform administrative duties" (para. [0051]). The modules executing the application programs to provide bench summaries about benches, including administrative persons in charge of the benches and descriptions of equipment available at the benches, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited "acquire, for each of a plurality of scientific instrument groups, asset information associated with the scientific instrument group, the scientific instrument group including at least one scientific instrument" limitation. The combination of the related benches, laboratory client computers, and equipment, and related functions accessible via the web browser of the computer, in Mehrotra, read on the recited "the at least one scientific instrument included in an instrument personal computer connected to one or more devices" limitation.
"... publish the asset information ... to a user application ... on at least one selected from a group consisting of a per instrument basis, a per instrument personal computer basis, and a per device basis; ..." - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, "Laboratory information selection 310, when chosen, provides information about each laboratory at one or more locations and the benches within a laboratory for a given project. In one embodiment, when laboratory information selection 310 is chosen, a laboratory information screen, such as exemplary laboratory information screen 400 as seen in FIG. 4, is returned. Laboratory information screen 400 displays the information about the laboratory in a hierarchical format similar to a directory tree structure. In this embodiment, at the highest level, location names 402 are shown. In one embodiment, the location names 402 are the name of the location where one or more laboratories are located. Alternatively, the name of the laboratory, a combination of the location name and laboratory name or any other indicator of a laboratory or laboratory location can be used. When one of the location names 402 is chosen, the next branch of the tree is shown. In one embodiment, the next branch is a bench name branch 404. The bench name branch 404 lists all the bench names at that particular location" (para. [0055]), "Selection of one of the bench name branches 404 calls up bench summary 406. The bench summary 406 lists information about the bench including the administrative person in charge of the bench, the other projects using the bench, description of equipment available at the bench and the like" (para. [0056], and "The bench, configuration, health and availability page 600 displays the name of each bench assigned to the selected project 510. For example, in FIG. 6, a first bench 604 and a second bench 606 are shown. The bench, configuration, health and availability page 600 also shows a bench configuration 608, a bench health indicator 610 and a bench availability indicator 612. In one embodiment, bench configuration 608 comprises of the information about the individual components of the test environment available on the bench" (para. [0067]). Causing information about benches and equipment to be displayed in the web browser, including descriptions of individual benches and individual equipment, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
“... acquire, for each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups, reservation information associated with the scientific instrument group ...” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “Laboratory schedule page 700 provides an interface comprising a calendar 701 listing times and days and having a plurality of time boxes 703 corresponding to a time interval and a date. Calendar 701 can also show one or more of the following: open time area 702, blocked time area 706 and/or request time area 704. In one embodiment, open time area 702, blocked time area 706 and request time area 704 are distinguished by color” (para. [0073]), “Open time area 702 is time that in which any approved user can schedule a laboratory session. In one embodiment, open time is time from the present time up to an open time limit, such as a number of days in the future. Open time area 702 can be selected by choosing one of the time boxes 703 within the open time area 702 that does not already have an entry indicating that the time has been reserved” (para. [0074]), and “Referring back to laboratory schedule page 700, additionally, the user can select different projects and or benches to schedule time for by selecting the different projects or benches from project field 712 and bench field 714” (para. [0076]). The modules executing the application programs to provide interfaces including calendars of times and days of availability of laboratories and benches, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Mehrotra and Beck (hereinafter referred to as "Mehrotra/Beck") teaches aspects reading on the following limitations of independent claim 1:
The claimed "publish" includes publishing to "a cache" - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra discloses use of a web browser, but does not provide specific details about the web browser's features, probably because the web browser in Mehrotra is a generic, conventional software element. Beck discloses "client computing device, server computing devices" (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Mehrotra. Beck also discloses, “web browsers also generally include the ability to cache information received from a server computing device 110 and determine whether the information in the cache is up-to-date with corresponding information of the server computing device 110. In this manner, the web browser of the client computing device 120 can prevent the repetitive transfer of the same information from the server computing device 110 to the client computing device 120. In other words, if the client computing device 120 requests a particular resource from the server computing device 110 and the client computing device 120 already has a copy of that resource in the cache, then the web browser can cause the client computing device 120 to use the cached version of the resource, thus eliminating a transfer of the resource from the server computing device 110 to the client computing device 120” (para. [0061]). The information being provided to the cache of the web browser, in Beck, reads on the recited limitation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have recognized that the web browser operates in conjunction with a cache, or to have modified the web browser to operate in conjunction with the cache, as in Beck, for efficiency, per Beck (see para. [0061]). Other rationales exist for making the combination, including: use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and/or applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
The combination of Mehrotra, Beck, and Persson (hereinafter referred to as "Mehrotra/Beck/Persson") teaches aspects reading on the following limitations of independent claim 1:
The claimed "acquire" includes acquiring "from a database" - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, generally, storing data in databases (see, e.g., the "storing the project data in a database" (Abstract and para. [0003], "Server 202 will preferably include a processor 230, a main memory 232, one or more mass storage device 234 such as a hard drive, floppy drive, optical storage devices, removable flash memory and the like. Additionally, mass storage device 234 can provide storage for a database program" and "a database server" (para. [0046]), and "a database operable to store the project data" (claim 17). Mehrotra also discloses use of the stored data, but does not explicitly disclose acquiring data from the databases. Persson discloses "managing booking of an office resource" (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Mehrotra. Persson also discloses, "The timetable of bookings for each office resource is also stored in correspondence with the office resource" and "Of course, although the resource booking information is stored within the database, the disclosure is not so limited. Specifically, the resource booking information may be retrieved from another resource booking system or other databases as would be appreciated” (para. [0047]). The storing and retrieving of information from databases, in Persson, reads on the recited limitation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used databases for storing information, in Mehrotra, to also provide access to the stored information, as in Persson, as it constitutes merely using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and/or merely applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Mehrotra/Beck/Persson also teaches aspects reading on the following limitations of independent claim 1:
“... generate, for each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups, a status card including status information associated with the scientific instrument group, wherein the status information is at least based on the asset information retrieved from the cache and the reservation information acquired from the database and provide a first user interface for displaying the status cards.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra, Beck, and Persson that have been cited above. Providing the health and availability pages for benches, wherein the pages include information about bench configuration, bench availability, and bench health, in Mehrotra, wherein information is retrieved from the cache, in Beck, and wherein other information is retrieved from one or more databases, as in Persson, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references, as specified above, also apply here.
Regarding claim 2, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 1, wherein the asset information includes at least one selected from a group consisting of an instrument identifier associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a scientific instrument group identifier associated the scientific instrument group, and a network connection status associated with each scientific instrument group.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra discloses, “Dynamic Bench with 2 TLAs Flyzer and FDExplorr” (FIG. 4), which reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 1, wherein the status information includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a data acquisition status of an instrument included in the scientific instrument group and a plot representing the data acquisition status.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “the bench health indicator 610 is implemented as a colored shape, such as a circle. In this embodiment, a red shape can indicate the bench is ‘down’ or unavailable for use, a yellow shape can indicate the bench is in a degraded status and a green shape can indicate the bench is up and available for use” (para. [0068]). The health indicators being indicative of benches being down and unavailable for use, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 1, wherein the reservation information includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a reservation start time, a reservation end time, a reservation name, and a reservation assignee associated with an upcoming reservation of the scientific instrument group.” - Mehrotra discloses, “The new session selection 628, when chosen, brings up a new session page 1000 as seen in FIG. 10” (para. [0078]), and “Start Time,” “End Time,” “Session ID,” and “Originator” (FIG. 10). The session information, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 1, wherein the at least one scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group is a user-defined configuration.” - Mehrotra discloses, “Configuration section 1004 displays information about the individual components of the test environment available for the test session as set by the administrative functions, discussed in greater detail below. The configuration data can be changed by selecting an edit button 1010” (para. [0080]). The equipment of the benches having associated configuration data that can be changed by selecting the edit button, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to user selection of a status card associated with a particular scientific instrument group, provide a second user interface, the second user interface including at least one selected from the group consisting of: a location of the scientific instrument group, a serial number associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a model number associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a firmware version associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a service status associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a service provided associated with each scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, a list of notifications associated with the scientific instrument group, and a logbook associated with the scientific instrument group.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. The modules executing the application programs to take the user from the interface depicted by FIG. 6 to the interface depicted by FIG. 10, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 7, wherein the logbook includes at least one logbook entry, the at least one logbook entry including at least one selected from the group consisting of: a support request, a software update, a configuration update, and a performed operation associated with a scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “Lab Purpose” and “Ad hoc Testing” (FIG. 10). The modules executing the application programs to display the lab purpose information, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to: provide a third user interface for generating a support ticket associated with a particular scientific instrument included in the scientific instrument group, the third user interface including a user-selectable list of scientific instruments included in the scientific instrument group, wherein the particular scientific instrument is selected from the user-selectable list, and the support ticket includes the asset information associated with the particular scientific instrument.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “Squawk section 1008 includes a summary section 1020 that displays a summary of each squawk made during a laboratory session with a squawk identification 1022 and a squawk title field 1023. Squawk section 1008 also provides the ability to edit a squawk by electing edit button 1026 or delete a squawk by selecting squawk delete button 1028. As discussed previously, a squawk can be any comment that concerns the usability of laboratory equipment or issues found for the product under test” (para. [0084]), and “To generate a squawk, the add squawk button 1024 can be selected. This will call a squawk add/edit/view page 1200 as seen in FIG. 12. The squawk add/edit/view page 1200 allows a user to enter a squawk title in a title field 1202, a classification in a classification field 1204, a subclassification in subclassification field 1206 and an assignee 1208” (para. [0085]). The modules executing the application programs to provide interfaces for generating squawks for benches and equipment, including the bench filed (see FIG. 7), the squawks section (see FIG. 10), and the squawk - add/edit section (see FIG. 12), in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: provide a fourth user interface, the fourth user interface including a reservation schedule of each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. The modules executing the application programs to provide calendar interfaces for scheduling (reserving) benches and equipment (see FIG. 7), in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a new reservation for a user-selected scientific instrument group, the new reservation including at least one selected from the group consisting of: a reservation date, a start time, an end time, an operation, a reservation assignee, and a selection of a full reservation or partial reservation.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “Request page 800 provides for the entry of a requested length of time for use of a laboratory by entering a requested number of blocks in a laboratory block section 804 with the length of time of each block in block length sections 805. Also, in one embodiment, the purpose for the laboratory time is entered in a purpose box 806. The user can indicate preferred times and days for laboratory use in preferred time request section 808. Also, the user can enter non-available times in not available section 810” (para. [0075]). The modules executing the application programs to provide request pages for use of laboratories, including benches and equipment therein, along with preferred time ranges, requester names, and numbers of lab blocks, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 10, the processor further configured to: generate a reminder notification for a reservation included in the reservation schedule for one of the plurality of scientific groups and provides the reminder notification to an assignee associated with the reservation.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “Laboratory schedule page 700 also provides a request link 710 to a laboratory request page 900 as seen in FIG. 9 that summarizes a user's laboratory requests. Laboratory request page 900 includes a list of laboratory requests 902” (para. [0076]). The modules executing the application programs to provide the laboratory request pages, listing users’ laboratory requests, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 10, the processor further configured to: selectively enable and disable modification of the reservation schedule according to user privilege.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “Turning back to FIG. 6, selection of the administrative selection 636 produces a submenu 1802, as seen in FIG. 18. Submenu 1802 includes selections that allow the user, given sufficient privileges, to perform as assortment of administrative tasks. In the exemplary submenu 1802, selections include a location administration selection 1804, a user administration selection 1806, a bench administration selection 1808, an edit bench selection 1810, a project administration selection 1812” (para. [0097]), and “Edit bench screen 2400 also includes an edit project section 2412 that allows a user to indicate if the project is active (active box 2414) and to edit the start time (box 2416) and end time (box 2418) reserved for the project” (para. [0106]). The modules executing the application programs to allow (or disallow) users, based on the sufficiency of their privileges, to edit start times and end times for projects, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrotra, in view of Beck, in view of Persson, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0037338 A1 to Scott et al. (hereinafter referred to as "Scott").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mehrotra, Beck, Persson, and Scott (hereinafter referred to as "Mehrotra/Beck/Persson/Scott") teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 1, wherein the asset information acquired by the instrument listener service includes a change in status reported by the connectivity service.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “a bench will typically have a computer associated with it” (para. [0037]), and “Laboratory client computers 206 are located on individual benches in laboratories” (para. [0045]). While Mehrotra discloses use of computers and obtaining information therewith, Mehrotra does not appear to disclose listener or connectivity services. Scott discloses "defining a plurality of monitored spaces" and "associating a set of laboratory equipment with the monitored space" (Abstract), and “generating, collecting, and analyzing information relating to actual utilization of laboratories to guide management, redesign, and other planning for the laboratories” (para. [0001]), similar to the claimed invention and to Mehrotra. Scott also discloses, “A research laboratory is a complex technology that includes various spaces and equipment that interoperate to execute experiments and generate experimental results. For research laboratories, some spaces may include high-value equipment that supports various research and experiments, and which may be fully operational (e.g., running automatically) without a person in the space actively monitoring the equipment. Such a space can be characterized as being well-utilized when such equipment is running in the space. Other spaces may include researcher work space (lab benches, etc.), which is understood as being well-utilized when occupied by multiple people. To provide a holistic view of space utilization which can be compared across various spaces of a research laboratory, both equipment utilization and occupant utilization of various spaces is considered by the system 100. As described in detail herein, the system 10 is configured to receive various types of data from various types of data sources, process the data to extract an equipment utilization score, an occupancy utilization score, and a combined utilization score for each of multiple spaces of a laboratory facility, and generate a graphical user interface that displays the metrics” (para. [0023]), “The laboratory equipment 14 may draw electricity from a building electrical system via smart plugs 16. In the example shown, the smart plugs 16 are configured to be placed between a standard electrical outlet (e.g., wall outlet) and a power cord for a device of laboratory equipment 14. The smart plugs 16 can thereby be used with the system 10 without requiring any modification or specialization of the building electrical system. In other embodiments, the functions attributed herein to the smart plugs 16 may be performed by an element of the building electrical system (e.g., smart wall outlets, etc.)” (para. [0028]), “Each smart plug 16 is configured to measure the amount or rate of electrical power passing therethrough to obtain a time series of electrical power measurements (“power consumption data”) and to transmit the power consumption data to the place controller 12. The power consumption data may include both an amount or rate of electrical power consumption and a time stamp associated with that amount or rate. The smart plugs 16 may be communicable with the place controller 12 via a wireless network, for example a WiFi network or cellular network” (para. [0029]), and “The place controller 12 is configured to receive equipment operating data from the laboratory equipment 14 and/or the smart plugs 16, occupancy data from the occupant tracking system 18, and, in some embodiments, other utilization-related data from the other sensors and systems 10. The place controller 12 may associated the data points with one or more of multiple spaces of the laboratory. The place controller 12 is also configured to process the data to determine an equipment utilization score, an occupant utilization score, and a combined utilization score, as described in detail below with reference to FIG. 3. The place controller 12 is also configured to generate a graphical user interface illustrating space utilization scores for the laboratory and to cause the user device 20 (e.g., smartphone, laptop, desktop computer, etc.) to display the graphical user interface. These and other features are described in detail below” (para. [0033]). The modules executing the application programs to facilitate communication of bench and equipment information via client computers and servers, using the network, in Mehrotra, when modified to include the data obtaining capabilities of the equipment and smart plugs, that is indicative of changes in electricity use among other things, in Scott, reads on the recited limitation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system, in Mehrotra, to include the data obtaining and displaying capabilities, of Scott, to provide a holistic view of space utilization, per Scott (see para. [0023]). Additionally, the combination amounts to use of a known technique to improve similar devices (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, and/or applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrotra, in view of Beck, further in view of Persson, further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0232673 A1 to Wood (hereinafter referred to as “Wood”), and further in view of Lowe, David. "Integrating reservations and queuing in remote laboratory scheduling." IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 6.1 (2013): 73-84 (hereinafter referred to as “Lowe”).
Regarding independent claim 14, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“A scientific instrument support system comprising: ...” - A similar limitation can be found in independent claim 1, and thus, the rejection rationale from claim 1 also applies here.
“... a server including a processor, the processor configured to: ...” - A similar limitation can be found in independent claim 1, and thus, the rejection rationale from claim 1 also applies here.
“... acquire, for each of a plurality of scientific instrument groups, reservation information and asset information associated with the scientific instrument group, the scientific instrument group including at least one scientific instrument; ...” - A similar limitation can be found in independent claim 1, and thus, the rejection rationale from claim 1 also applies here.
“... publish the asset information to a user application and to a cache on at least one selected from a group consisting of a per instrument basis, a per instrument personal computer basis, and a per device basis, wherein the cache is configured to store the asset information for subsequent retrieval by the user application; ...” - A similar limitation can be found in independent claim 1, and thus, the rejection rationale from claim 1 also applies here.
"... acquire the reservation information from the database; ..." - A similar limitation can be found in independent claim 1, and thus, the rejection rationale from claim 1 also applies here.
“... aggregate the reservation information of each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups to create an aggregated schedule; ...” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Generating the calendars listing times and days that are open, have already been reserved, or are closed, for benches and equipment, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
“... provide a first user interface for display to a display device, the first user interface including the aggregated schedule ...” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Generating the calendars for display on interfaces (see FIG. 7), in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Mehrotra, Beck, Persson, and Wood (hereinafter referred to as “Mehrotra/Beck/Persson/Wood”) teaches aspects reading on limitations below of independent claim 14:
The claimed “aggregated schedule” is “of each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups in separate regions of the first user interface” - While various interfaces shown in Mehrotra appears to disclose aggregated scheduling information on calendar interfaces (see, e.g., at least FIGS. 7-9), Mehrotra does not appear to explicitly disclose multiple scientific instrument groups in separate regions of the interface. Wood discloses "managing equipment" involving "at least one lab location" (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention, and to Mehrotra. Wood also discloses, “The calendar module 114 of user terminal 102 can then display a calendar on the display 117 to represent the dates and/or times the equipment is available” (para. [0024]), and “In some implementations, the management system displays a calendar of dates of use for each of the plurality of equipment” (para. [0028]). The displaying of the calendar of dates of use for each of the plurality of equipment, in Wood, reads on the recited limitation. Additionally or alternatively, Wood can be viewed as teaching a duplication of the bench calendar information shown (singly) in FIGS. 7-9 of Mehrotra. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bench calendar interface, of Mehrotra, to include additional calendars for other benches, as suggested by Wood, to keep track of schedules of use for equipment located in one or more lab locations, as taught by Wood (see para. [0013]). Further, “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
The combination of Mehrotra, Beck, Persson, Wood, and Lowe (hereinafter referred to as “Mehrotra/Beck/Persson/Wood/Lowe”) teaches aspects reading on limitations below of independent claim 14:
“... in response to receiving a first user selection of an unreserved time slot within the aggregated schedule of one of the plurality of scientific instrument groups included in the first user interface, provide a reservation editor panel including a plurality of indicators representing a plurality of instruments included in the one of the plurality of scientific instrument groups and based on the asset information; and ...” - See the aspects of Mehrotra and Wood that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, "The laboratory schedule selection 624, when chosen, brings up a laboratory schedule page 700 as seen in FIG. 7. Laboratory schedule page 700 provides an interface comprising a calendar 701 listing times and days and having a plurality of time boxes 703 corresponding to a time interval and a date. Calendar 701 can also show one or more of the following: open time area 702, blocked time area 706 and/or request time area 704. In one embodiment, open time area 702, blocked time area 706 and request time area 704 are distinguished by color" (para. [0073]).While Mehrotra generally shows and describes interfaces for selecting open time slots and the like, and Wood discloses representing multiple instruments, neither appears to disclose specifics about how reservations would be edited. Lowe discloses "Integrating Reservations and Queuing in Remote Laboratory Scheduling" (p. 73), similar to the claimed invention, and to Mehrotra and Wood. Further, Figs. 3 and 4 of Lowe show interfaces that receive user selections of rig types and reservation times for the rig types. Receiving user selections of open time slots on the calendar interfaces, for multiple benches and equipment, in Mehrotra and Wood, in combination with instances where users then cancel the reservations, and instead select specific rigs (e.g., “Shake Table 1”) from the rig types, causing the “Shake Table” pop-up window to appear as in Fig. 3, as in Lowe, reads on the recited limitation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interfaces for making reservations, of Mehrotra and Wood, to include the ability to make reservations for general rig types, and to cancel them and make reservations for specific rigs within the general rig types, as in Lowe, as choosing a rig pool may provide more available slots, as taught by Lowe (see p. 76). Further, the use of reservation interface aspects of Mehrotra, Wood, and Lowe constitutes combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
“... in response to receiving a second user selection of one of the plurality of indicators, create a new reservation for the one of the plurality of scientific instrument groups limited to one instrument included in the one of the plurality of scientific instrument groups.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra, Wood, and Lowe have been cited above. The interface of Fig. 3 then receiving selections of specific rigs from the pop-up windows, leading to the interface of Fig. 4 providing users with the ability to reserve the specific rigs out of the umbrella rig types, in Lowe, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references, as stated above, also apply here.
Regarding claim 15, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson/Wood/Lowe teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 14, wherein each region of the aggregated schedule represents a plurality of time slots and wherein each of the plurality of time slots is marked as an unreserved time slot or a reserved time slot.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. The cells having dates (column heading) and times (row headings), and having visual indications of being open, reserved or requested, and closed, in Mehrotra (see FIG. 7), reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson/Wood/Lowe teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 14, wherein the third logic displays, in response to receiving user input indicating a selection of a reserved time slot of a scientific instrument group, reservation details associated with a reservation of the scientific instrument group during the reserved time slot.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. The modules executing the application programs to receive scheduling requests for preferred days and times for benches and equipment (see FIG. 8), and providing resultant session information (see FIG. 10), in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 17, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson/Wood/Lowe teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 16, wherein the reservation details include a plurality of reservation fields, the plurality of reservation fields including a start time of the reservation, an end time of the reservation, a start date of the reservation, an end date of the reservation, and a reservation assignee of the reservation.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. The session information including multiple fields, including “Start Time,” “End Time,” “Date,” and “Originator,” in Mehrotra (FIG. 10), reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson/Wood/Lowe teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 16, wherein the reservation details includes a recurrence, the recurrence including at least one selected from the group consisting of a daily recurrence, a weekly recurrence, a monthly recurrence, a quarterly recurrence, a yearly recurrence, and no recurrence.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. The lab request page including request information for requests at different times on the same day, in Mehrotra (see FIG. 9), reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 19, Mehrotra/Beck/Persson/Wood/Lowe teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to disable modification of the reservation in response to determining that the user does not have sufficient user privilege to modify the reservation.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. The processor executing the application programs to disallow users, based on the sufficiency of their privileges, to edit start times and end times for projects, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrotra, in view of Beck, further in view Persson, further in view of Wood, further in view of Lowe, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0147596 A1 to Vanderboom et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Vanderboom”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mehrotra, Beck, Persson, Wood, Lowe, and Vanderboom (hereinafter referred to as “Mehrotra/Beck/Persson/Wood/Lowe/Vanderboom”) teaches aspects reading on the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to user input indicating a creation of a new reservation, an instrument search field including a list of scientific instruments and determine a scientific instrument group for the new reservation based on user selection of at least one scientific instrument included in the instrument search field.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. While Mehrotra discloses the processor responsive to user inputs for reserving benches and equipment having open time slots, and interfaces for finding said benches and equipment, Mehrotra does not appear to disclose search fields or the like on said interfaces. Vanderboom discloses an "on-line, web-based laboratory services brokerage system" (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Mehrotra. Vanderboom also discloses, “the member laboratories will have underutilized scientific laboratory capabilities. An electronic database of the member laboratory capabilities (including their instrumentation, published methods, laboratory methods, techniques, specializations and scientist expertise) is also maintained” (para. [0037]), “When a customer desires to contract for a laboratory services project, he or she will prepare a request for a proposal (RFP). The customer can, if they wish, specify a laboratory having certain characteristics (e.g., in a specific industry). These customer requests for analytical testing services are made through the interactive website. The RFP will be transmitted over the network, and received electronically by the system business” (para. [0038]), and “individuals such as project scientists working on behalf of the system business can search the database and select the appropriate member laboratory on the basis of its capabilities” (para. [0039]). Customers generating RFPs with laboratory characteristics, including desired instrumentation, which is then entered into searches to identify laboratories with the instrumentation, using data entry fields (like those in FIG. 3-3), in Vanderboom, when applied in the context of the bench and equipment finding and reserving interfaces, of Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation. For example, note the drop-down menus for “Bench” as shown in FIG. 15 of Mehrotra. Use of the RFP searching aspects of Vanderboom, in the context of the interfaces and elements therein, in Mehrotra reads on the recited limitation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the lab management processes, and associated bench and equipment identifying and reserving interfaces, of Mehrotra, to include the instrumentation searching aspects, of Vanderboom, as doing so “allows customers to conveniently and rapidly locate cost-effective laboratories for completing published method tests as well as laboratories with capabilities which qualify them to analyze and solve complex problems,” as taught by Vanderboom (para. [0020]).
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to the claims included in the Response, the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b), and the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), have been rendered moot and withdrawn.
On pp. 9-11 of the Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. More specifically, the applicant argues that the specification identifies a technical problem, and the claimed invention is a technical solution to the problem. (See Response at p. 9.) The applicant highlights the recited "cache" and "database" limitations. (See id. at pp. 9 and 10.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The steps that recite the "cache" and "database" are like electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, indicative of ineligibility. (See MPEP 2106.05(d).) The steps also read like generic, conventional computer hardware and software functionality (e.g., a computer running a web browser, and a computer accessing databases for storing/stored information), which does not constitute an eligibility-warranting improvement. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and (II).)
The applicant also argues that the claimed invention establishes an improvement to a technical field, and cites eligibility rationales from McRo and Enfish. (See Response at p. 10.) According to the applicant, the claimed invention establishes improvements to the technical field of scientific instrument communication and improvements to the operation and usage of the scientific instrument themselves. (See id.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. In McRo, the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(a).) The applicant's claims, however, are directed to improvements in scheduling and reserving resources, which is an abstract idea. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a self-referential database and were an improvement to computer functionality. The applicant's claims, however, are directed to scheduling and reserving resources, using a generic, conventional database, where the improvement is to scheduling and reserving, not to the database. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).) Further, the fact that the reserving and scheduling is applied to scientific instruments, does not make the reserving and scheduling performed technology or technological, as its application to generic scientific instruments is viewed like application to any other resources, and thus is merely field of use or technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
On pp. 11-14 of the Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 USC 103. The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See citations to the newly-identified Beck and Persson references in the 35 USC 103 section above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
CN Util. Mod. No. 202615205 to Tu et al. discloses, " This utility model claims an intelligent laboratory instrument management monitoring device based on Internet of Things, comprising an instrument for generating monitor, a network access point and a central control processor, apparatus for generating monitor according to the input voltage current identifying apparatus and work apparatus and for generating, according to the switch control or reservation instruction to finish the on-off of the power supply apparatus, network access point for apparatus for instrument identification result for the data transmission, the central control processor between the monitor and the central control processor, and receiving the external switch control or reservation. This utility model can realize the efficient and safe monitoring for laboratory instrument equipment under the condition of not changing the internal structure of the laboratory apparatus, and effectively develop equipment management." (English-language translation, Abstract.)
English-language translation of CN Util. Mod. No. 202615205 to Tu et al.
Li, Yaoye, Sven K. Esche, and Constantin Chassapis. "A scheduling system for shared online laboratory resources." 2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, 2008.
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 THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights