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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The applicant's submission, the Response dated 05 January 2026, has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-20 of the Response.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: the recited “instrument listener service ... to publish the asset information” limitation, the recited “messaging framework ... to output the asset information” limitation, and the “instrument cache writer service ... to published the asset information” limitation, all from claim 1; and the recited “instrument listener service acquiring the asset information” limitation, and the recited “messaging framework ... to output the asset information” limitation, all from claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.03(VI). See also the 35 USC 112(b) issues raised below.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of the claim limitations, including: the recited “instrument listener service ... to publish the asset information” limitation, the recited “messaging framework ... to output the asset information” limitation, and the “instrument cache writer service ... to published the asset information” limitation, all from claim 1; and the recited “instrument listener service acquiring the asset information” limitation, and the recited “messaging framework ... to output the asset information” limitation, all from claim 14, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Further, for a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, and yet the applicant’s specification does not disclose algorithms for performing the claimed specific computer functions. Therefore, claims 1 and 14, and claims 2-13 and 15-20 that depend therefrom, are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A scientific instrument support ... , comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... first logic to 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
“... the first logic ... acquiring the asset information for at least one group of the plurality of scientific instrument groups ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... publish the asset information ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... output the asset information ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... second logic to 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
“... third logic to 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 and the reservation information, and the third logic provides ... for 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 or relationships or interactions between people, associated with reserving resources for use by users, 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” steps), and evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (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 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)
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 “first logic” is one “including an instrument listener service” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “acquiring” is “from a connectivity service installed on a scientific instrument or instrument computer included in the at least one group” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “publish” is performed by “the instrument listener service” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “publish” is “to a messaging framework” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “output” is performed by “the messaging framework” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “output” is “to a user application and a cache through an instrument cache writer service, wherein the instrument cache writer service is configured to publish the asset information to the messaging framework 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 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “displaying” involves use of “a first user interface” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of 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, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, 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, 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, performing repetitive calculations, 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 “fourth logic, wherein, in response to user selection of a status card associated with a particular scientific instrument group, the fourth logic provides ... 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 “fifth logic ... 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 “further comprising fourth logic to provide ... a reservation schedule of each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups” of claim 10, the “fourth logic generates 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 “wherein the fourth logic generates 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 “further comprising fifth logic to 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 “system” of claims 2-13, the “reported by the connectivity service” of claim 4, the “second user interface, the second user interface including” of claim 7, the “a 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 “the third logic, 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 ..., providing ... a plurality of indicators representing a plurality of instruments included in the one of the plurality of scientific instrument groups; and the third logic, in response to receiving a second user selection of one of the plurality of indicators, creating 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 “included in the first user interface, providing 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 § 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 1-13 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. 2021/0037338 A1 to Scott et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Scott”).
Regarding claim 1, Mehrotra discloses 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.
“... first logic to 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 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]), “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]). 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 limitation.
“... 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, “Laboratory client computers 206 are located on individual benches in laboratories” (para. [0045]). The combination of the related benches, laboratory client computers, and equipment, in Mehrotra, read on the recited limitation.
“... second logic to 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.
“... third logic to 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 and the reservation information, and the third logic provides a first user interface for displaying the status cards.” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “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]). The modules executing the application programs to provide the health and availability pages for benches, wherein the pages include information about bench configuration, bench availability, and bench health, in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Mehrotra and Scott (hereinafter referred to as “Mehrotra/Scott”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Mehrotra:
“... the first logic including an instrument listener service, the instrument listener service acquiring the asset information for at least one group of the plurality of scientific instrument groups from a connectivity service installed on a scientific instrument or instrument computer included in the at least one group, ...” - Mehrotra 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]). Scott 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 system including programmed functionality for receiving equipment operating data from laboratory equipment and smart plugs, for laboratory spaces, in Scott, when applied in the context of the system in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein the instrument listener service is further configured to publish the asset information to a messaging framework, wherein the messaging framework is configured to output the asset information to a user application and a cache through an instrument cache writer service, wherein the instrument cache writer service is configured to publish the asset information to the messaging framework 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 and Scott that have been cited above. Mehrotra also discloses, “storing the project data in a database” (para. [0003], “a mass storage device operable to store the project data” (para. [0004]), and screens or pages displaying information (FIGS. 3-29). Scott also discloses, “At step 314, the utilization scores are sent to a dashboard (i.e., to a graphical user interface) that displays utilization results. Various displays are possible in various embodiments. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, a map of the laboratory may be displayed and overlaid with the geofenced boundaries and a combined utilization percentage for each space. In particular, FIG. 7 shows a dashboard 700 on which a map (floorplan) of the laboratory is shown. The boundaries of multiple spaces (e.g., first space 701, second space 706) are shown. For each space, a utilization indicator is overlaid on the space that shows the combined utilization score for the space” (para. [0060]), “As shown in FIG. 7, the dashboard 700 also includes various options for customizing the data shown by the dashboard 700. As shown, the dashboard 700 includes a measurement period field 702 that allows a user to select the time period over which data is selected to generate the combined utilization scores shown on the dashboard 700, a non-working hours toggle 703 that allows a user to select whether non-working hours are included in the calculations, a timeframe progression option 704 that allows a user to select an hour, day, week, month, or year, and a space selection widget 705 that allows a user to select one or more spaces or places to be shown on the dashboard. The dashboard 700 thereby facilitates customization of the utilization scores shown on the dashboard 700. The place controller 12 may be configured to operate to update the calculations in response to user input to the dashboard 700” (para. [0061]), and “Embodiments within the scope of the present disclosure include program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon. Such machine-readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer or other machine with a processor. By way of example, such machine-readable media can comprise RAM, ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to carry or store desired program code in the form of machine-executable instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer or other machine with a processor” (para. [0067]. The system being configured to provide information about the laboratory equipment to the screens and pages, and stores the information in data storage, with the data being about specific benches and equipment, in Mehrotra, in combination with the system configured to provide information about the laboratory equipment to the dashboard, wherein the dashboard outputs the equipment information to the graphical user interface pane, and stores the information in data storage, with the data being about specific equipment, in Scott, reads on the recited limitation.
Scott discloses, “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. 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, as taught by Scott (see para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, Mehrotra/Scott teaches 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/Scott teaches 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 4, Mehrotra/Scott teaches 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 and Scott that have been cited above. 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, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Mehrotra/Scott teaches 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/Scott teaches 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/Scott teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 1, further comprising fourth logic, wherein, in response to user selection of a status card associated with a particular scientific instrument group, the fourth logic provides 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/Scott teaches 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/Scott teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 7, further comprising: fifth logic 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/Scott teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 1, further comprising fourth logic 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/Scott teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 10, wherein the fourth logic generates 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/Scott teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 10, wherein the fourth logic generates 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/Scott teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 10, further comprising fifth logic 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.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrotra, in view of Scott, 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 claim 14, Mehrotra discloses the following limitations:
“A scientific instrument support system comprising: ...” - A similar limitation can be found in claim 1, and thus, the rejection rationale from claim 1 also applies here.
“... first logic to acquire, for each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups, reservation information and asset information associated with the scientific instrument group, ...” - A similar limitation can be found in claim 1, and thus, the rejection rationale from claim 1 also applies here.
“... second logic to 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. The modules executing the application programs to generate 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.
“... third logic to provide a first user interface for display to a display device, the first user interface including: the aggregated schedule ..., wherein each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups includes at least one scientific instrument; ...” - See the aspects of Mehrotra that have been cited above. The modules executing the application programs to generate the calendars for display on interfaces (see FIG. 7), in Mehrotra, reads on the recited limitation.
Mehrotra/Scott teaches limitations below of claim 14 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Mehrotra:
“... the scientific instrument group including at least one scientific instrument, the first logic including an instrument listener service, the instrument listener service acquiring the asset information for at least one group of the plurality of scientific instrument groups from a connectivity service installed on a scientific instrument or instrument computer included in the at least one group, wherein the instrument listener service is further configured to publish the asset information to a messaging framework, wherein the messaging framework is configured to output the asset information to a user application and to a cache, wherein the cache is configured to store the asset information for subsequent retrieval by the user application; and ...” - A similar limitation can be found in claim 1, and thus, the rejection rationale from claim 1 also applies here.
The combination of Mehrotra, Scott, and Wood (hereinafter referred to as “Mehrotra/Scott/Wood”) teaches limitations below of claim 14 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Mehrotra/Scott:
The claimed “display ... the aggregated schedule” is “of each of the plurality of scientific instrument groups in separate regions of the first user interface” - Wood 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 FIG. 7 of Mehrotra.
Wood discloses “managing equipment quality, by a management system” where “The management system receives a request to reserve one of the plurality of equipment at a requested date and time” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Mehrotra/Scott. 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/Scott, 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, Scott, Wood, and Lowe (hereinafter referred to as “Mehrotra/Scott/Wood/Lowe”) teaches limitations below of claim 14 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Mehrotra/Scott/Wood:
“... the third logic, 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, providing 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 ...” - Figs. 3 and 4 of Lowe show interfaces that receive user selections of rig types and reservation times for the rig types. In 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, the sequence, in Lowe, reads on the recited limitation.
“... the third logic, in response to receiving a second user selection of one of the plurality of indicators, creating 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 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.
Lowe discloses laboratory scheduling (see title), similar to the claimed invention and to Mehrotra/Scott/Wood. 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/Scott/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).
Regarding claim 15, Mehrotra/Scott/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/Scott/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/Scott/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/Scott/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/Scott/Wood/Lowe teaches the following limitations:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 14, further comprising: fourth logic 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 modules 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 Scott, 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, Scott, Wood, Lowe, and Vanderboom (hereinafter referred to as “Mehrotra/Scott/Wood/Lowe/Vanderboom”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Mehrotra/Scott/Wood/Lowe:
“The scientific instrument support system of claim 14, wherein in response to user input indicating a creation of a new reservation, the third logic displays an instrument search field including a list of scientific instruments and determines a scientific instrument group for the new reservation based on user selection of at least one scientific instrument included in the instrument search field.” - Vanderboom teaches, “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, reads on the recited limitation. Note also 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/Scott/Wood/Lowe reads on the recited limitation.
Vanderboom discloses “An on-line, web-based laboratory services brokerage system” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Mehrotra/Scott/Wood/Lowe. 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, of Mehrotra/Scott/Wood/Lowe, 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
On pp. 7-9 of the Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. The applicant contends that the claims have been amended to recite technical architecture for acquiring, publishing, caching, and propagating asset information from distributed scientific instruments. (Response, p. 8.) The applicant puts emphasis on the claims reciting the instrument listener service publishing asset information obtained from the instrument computer to a messaging framework and routes the information to both a user application and through an instrument cache writer service. (Response, p. 8.) The applicant contends that the claimed architecture changes how instrument data is communicated and synchronized, in that conventional systems rely on manual polling or scheduled refresh cycles, while the claimed architecture eliminates the need for poling and ensures that changes in status are propagated immediately. (Response, p. 8.) According to the applicant, this is indicative of improvements representing advancements in scientific instrument communication, including more efficient propagation of instrument status changes, improved reliability of instrument state awareness, and reduced load on instrument-side connectivity services. (Response, p. 8.) Similar/related contentions are also set forth. (Response, pp. 8 and 9.)
The examiner disagrees with the above contentions. The claim limitations merely amount to more additional elements, recited so broadly that they still encompass generic, conventional computer hardware and componentry. The claimed instrument listener service reads like a computer keeping an activity log. The claimed messaging framework reads like a GUI for displaying outputs. The instrument cache writer service reads like writing information to a memory location. None of these elements establishes an improvement to technology. Rather, they establish incorporating elements of a generic, conventional computer. Also, the examiner has failed to find any technical explanation of the asserted improvements in the specification, which is required. (MPEP 2106.05(a).)
On pp. 9-11 of the Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 USC 103. The applicant contends that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the recited claim limitations. (Response, pp. 9-11.) The examiner disagrees with the contentions. The 35 USC 103 section above provides new interpretations of elements of the cited references that read on the newly-introduced claim limitations.
Conclusion
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