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 .
Priority
This application claims subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 17/787,216, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner. See MPEP 201.06. However, in this case, an election/restriction requirement was not made by the examiner over the prior application 17/787,216. Accordingly, a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been set forth over Application No. 17.787,216 because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented (see below).
Status of Claims
Claim 1-14 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) document(s) submitted on 05/19/2025, 07/28/2025, and 09/05/2025 are compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS document(s) has/have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “a selection of a second subset of the selected laboratory applications a second admin configuration…”. The examiner believes this is a grammatical/clerical mistake which should recite “a selection of a second subset of the selected laboratory applications and a second admin configuration…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the result is received from the user while the first scientific device is offline”. Claim 8 depends from claims 7 and 1. Claim 1 previously recite “transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing a first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration” and Claim 7 recites “receiving, upon completion of the selected laboratory application to process the batch, a result of the selected laboratory application to process the batch”. It is unclear to the examiner how a result of the selected laboratory application is transmitted and received while the first scientific device is offline. How is a signal transmitted from a device that is offline?
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 13 is not directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter because it is directed towards a machine readable medium and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
It is noted paragraph [0159] of applicants printed publication disclose “In some examples, machine readable media may include non-transitory machine-readable media. In some examples, machine readable media may include machine readable media that is not a transitory propagating signal.”. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether the claimed “machine-readable medium” is one of the four categories of subject matter deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent. The examiner recommends applicant amend claim 13 to explicitly recite “A non-transitory machine-readable media” in order to be deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed toward a system. Claim 14 is directed towards a method.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
Claims 1, and 14 recites the abstract ideas, “storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples”, “receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory”, “receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configuration of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration”, “receiving, via the web software platform a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset of the laboratory applications to process a batch”, “providing, in response to the request, one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using the first scientific device, wherein the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory”, “transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing a first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration” are mental processes that could be performed by a human person by pen and paper or by a black box computer. The processing circuitry to perform the recited steps/processes is simply a general-purpose computer for which to apply the abstract ideas, but does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
The abstract ideas are performed by processing circuitry of one or more servers and a memory storing instructions which are just a general-purpose computer. However, use of conventional computer functions to apply the judicial exception does not qualify as a particular machine (MPEP § 2106(b)(I), MPEP § 2106(b)(II) and MPEP § 2106(b)(III)).
If the “storing” and “receiving” are deemed not to be abstract ideas, then they do not integrate the exception into a particular practical application.
Storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples is interpreted as mere instructions to apply an exception, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception, but does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The memory to store information does not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (see MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation, MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configuration of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Receiving via the web software platform a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset of the laboratory applications to process a batch is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Providing, in response to the request, one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using a scientific device, wherein the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing a first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
Claims 1, and 14 recite the additional elements of processing circuity of one or more servers, a memory, batches of samples, a first lab administrator client device, and one or more scientific devices in a laboratory for performing processing on the batch of samples. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by Hren et al. (US 2015/0100155 – hereinafter “Hren”) and Fava et al. (US 2002/0147515 – hereinafter “Fava”). Hren and Fava teach processing circuitry of one or more servers (Hren; Hren; processor 808 for server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058] & Fara; workcell system comprising process controller and laboratory information system; fig 1, [0015]), a memory (Hren; computer readable medium 806 and database 812 of server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058] & Fava; protocols stored in the protocol database; [0044]), batches of samples (Hren; [0024] & Fava; [0031]), a first lab administrator client device, and one or more second scientific devices in a laboratory for performing processing on the batch of samples (Hren disclose one or more protocol creation devices 106/700 and one or more liquid handlers 104/200/600 configured to interface through network 108; figs. 1 & 7, [0021, 0037, 0042, 0045-0047] & Fava; figs. 1-2, Resources R1, R1, … RN, [0015, 0017]).
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea of receiving an operator configuration from a lab operator client device (step 2A prong 1) which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment), but does not integrate the additional element “a lab operator client device” under 2A prong 2 because the lab operator client device does not amount to significantly more as this is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Hren (Hren disclose one or more protocol creation devices 106 having any form factor such as a laptop, desktop, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, an integrated messaging device, a tablet computer, etc.; [0025]).
Claims 3 recites “the result signal indicates that the first part of the selected back was successful” and “running a second part of the selected laboratory application” are interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function. Running an application is merely instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Claim 4 limits the elements recited in claims 1 & 3 which are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC), and therefore do not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the selected laboratory application includes an indication of the first part and the second part”. However, displaying is not considered a practical application, such as improving the functioning of a computer, effecting a transformation, effecting a particular treatment, or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Indeed, the Court did not find that displaying information on a computer display without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result (information display) was not sufficient to show patent eligibility. Nor did the court find that arranging information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists in processing information more quickly was sufficient to show patent eligibility. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I).
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of receiving a selection of a second subset of the selected laboratory applications from a second lab administrator client device associated with a second laboratory (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment), but does not integrate the additional element “a second lab administrator client device and a second laboratory” under 2A prong 2 because the lab operator client device does not amount to significantly more as this is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Hren (Hren disclose one or more protocol creation devices 106 having any form factor such as a laptop, desktop, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, an integrated messaging device, a tablet computer, etc.; [0025] and one or more liquid handlers 104; [0021]).
Claim 7 recites the abstract ideas of receiving a result, determining whether the result is within a range, and providing the result to a lab operator client device (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as receiving and transmitting data over a network and has been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function. Further, determining a result is interpreted as a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception, but would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more as performing repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I), MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II), MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III), MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). The claim recites the additional element of “a lab operator client device”, but does not integrate the additional element under 2A prong 2 because the lab operator client device does not amount to significantly more as this is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art in view of Hren (Hren disclose one or more protocol creation devices 106 having any form factor such as a laptop, desktop, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, an integrated messaging device, a tablet computer, etc.; [0025]).
Claim 8 recites elements directed towards receiving the result from the user while the first scientific device is offline (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory, have been recognized as a generic computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of determining whether the first scientific device is connected via a network (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as applying the abstract idea on a computer and is not considered sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory, have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea “setting a production status of at least one laboratory application” (step 2A prong 1), which is interpreted as merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer and is not considered sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP §2106.04(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception).
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea “at least a scan of a container of a sample … identifying the sample based on the scan”. Scanning a sample container and identifying the sample are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP §2106.04(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception)
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea “applying optical character recognition (OCR) to at least a portion of the scan”. Scanning a sample container and identifying the sample are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP §2106.04(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(f), Mere Instruction To Apply An Exception)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hren et al. (US 2015/0100155 – hereinafter “Hren”).
Regarding claim 1, Hren disclose a system (Hren disclose a liquid handling system 100; fig. 1, [0021]) comprising:
processing circuitry of one or more servers (Hren; processor 808 for server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058]); and
a memory in communication with the processing circuitry (Hren; computer readable medium 806 and database 812 of server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058]), the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (Hren; database 812 may save, access, and retrieve protocol creation applications 712/810; figs. 7-8, [0063]);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory (Hren disclose one or more protocol creation devices 106/700 and one or more liquid handlers 104/200/600 configured to interface through network 108; figs. 1 & 7, [0021, 0042, 0047]), a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067]. When a user selects button 1006 “Manage qPCR analyses”, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 15 that allows the user to search, edit, or create files containing information for analyzing samples according to a protocol; figs. 14-26, [0078-0118]. When a user selects button 1008 “Create new qPCR experiment” or save button 2308 shown in fig. 23 after creating a new analysis, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 26 that allows the user to select batches of samples using button 2816 or button 2820 to be processed according to the selected protocol; figs. 26-36; [0119-0170]) and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (Hren disclose different users may access and edit one or more of the qPCR analyses listed in the qPCR analysis table 1502 using a computing device of protocol creation system 104. As a result, another user may not be able to edit a qPCR analysis for which the statis is “In editing”; fig. 16, [0080]);
receiving, via a web software platform (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712 implemented as a Web application; [0055]), one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067]. When a user selects button 1006 “Manage qPCR analyses”, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 15 that allows the user to search, edit, or create files containing information for analyzing samples according to a protocol; figs. 14-26, [0078-0118]. Different users may access and edit one or more of the qPCR analyses listed in the qPCR analysis table 1502 using a computing device of protocol creation system 104. As a result, another user may not be able to edit a qPCR analysis for which the statis is “In editing”; fig. 16, [0080]);
receiving via the web software platform a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset of the laboratory applications to process a batch (Hren disclose one or more liquid handlers 104/200 that comprise control 600 having a control application 610; figs. 1 & 6, [0021, 0037, 0045-0046]. The control application 610 and protocol creation application 712/810 are the same application supporting all of the same types of functionalities; [0062]. Execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]);
providing, in response to the request, one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using a scientific device (Hren disclose execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]. Hren disclose one or more liquid handlers 104 and assigning analysis depends on compatible qPCR cycler manufacturer, model, and software version; [0021, 0134]), wherein the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (Hren disclose execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]; and
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing a first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration (Hren disclose the protocol includes a sequence of commands configured to control operation of one or more components of liquid handler 200; [0042]. Execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]. The control application 610 and protocol creation application 712/810 are the same application supporting all of the same types of functionalities; [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Hren disclose the system of claim 1 above, the operations further comprising:
receiving, from a lab operator client device (Hren disclose one or more protocol creation devices 106 having any form factor such as a laptop, desktop, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, an integrated messaging device, a tablet computer, etc.; [0025]), an operator configuration for the selected laboratory application (Hren disclose the one or more protocol creation devices 106 allow an operator to edit, view, copy, or delete a selected analysis protocol using expand tab 1520; fig. 16, [0082, 0117]), wherein the control signal is for executing the at least the first part of the selected laboratory application in accordance with the admin configuration and the operator configuration (Hren disclose edited analysis applications are saved with a timestamp and the status is set to “Ready” and the analysis is ready for use in creating an experiment; [0117]. The protocol includes a sequence of commands configured to control operation of one or more components of liquid handler 200; [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Hren disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the result signal indicates that the first part of the selected batch was successful (Hren disclose controller 600 sends results obtained for a sample for storage on protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102; [0042]), the operations further comprising:
running a second part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch at a second scientific device, wherein the second scientific device is selected, by the user, from the one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (Hren disclose one or more liquid handlers 104; [0024]. The protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067], that allows a user to manage labware using button 1002 and to manage qPCR cyclers using button 1004; figs. 9-13, [0064-0077]. The protocol includes a sequence of commands configured to control operation of one or more components of liquid handler 200; [0042]. Execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]. The control application 610 and protocol creation application 712/810 are the same application supporting all of the same types of functionalities; [0062]. Batches of samples are added by a user using the add sample button 2816; fig. 28, [0126]. Analysis are assigned to samples using an assign analysis button 3022; fig. 30, [0133]. Accordingly, the system is configurable to perform the claimed operations).
Regarding claim 4, Hren disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the second scientific device is different from the first scientific device (Hren disclose one or more liquid handlers 104; [0024]. The protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067], that allows a user to manage labware using button 1002 and to manage qPCR cyclers using button 1004; figs. 9-13, [0064-0077]).
Regarding claim 5, Hren disclose the system of claim 3 above, wherein the selected laboratory application includes an indication of the first part and the second part (Hren disclose an assign analysis button 3022 for adding analyses to samples; figs. 30-31; [0133-0134]).
Regarding claim 6, Hren disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the set of laboratory applications comprises applications for multiple different laboratories (Hren disclose the components of liquid handling system 100 may be distributed geographically from one another and comprise one or more liquid handlers 104 and one or more protocol creation devices 106; [0021]), the operations further comprising:
receiving, from a second lab administrator client device associated with a second laboratory (Hren disclose one or more protocol creation devices 106 having any form factor such as a laptop, desktop, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, an integrated messaging device, a tablet computer, etc.; [0025] and one or more liquid handlers 104; [0021]), a selection of a second subset of the selected laboratory applications a second admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the second subset for use in the second laboratory (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067]. When a user selects button 1006 “Manage qPCR analyses”, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 15 that allows the user to search, edit, or create files containing information for analyzing samples according to a protocol; figs. 14-26, [0078-0118]. When a user selects button 1008 “Create new qPCR experiment” or save button 2308 shown in fig. 23 after creating a new analysis, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 26 that allows the user to select batches of samples using button 2816 or button 2820 to be processed according to the selected protocol; figs. 26-36; [0119-0170]. Hren disclose different users may access and edit one or more of the qPCR analyses listed in the qPCR analysis table 1502 using a computing device of protocol creation system 104. As a result, another user may not be able to edit a qPCR analysis for which the statis is “In editing”; fig. 16, [0080]), wherein the second subset is different from the first subset (Hren disclose creating protocols using button 1518 and/or editing protocols using button 1600, thereby resulting in a different subset; fig. 16, [0081, 0083-0084]), and wherein the second admin configuration is different from the admin configuration received from the first lab administrator client device (Hren disclose one or more liquid handlers 104 and assigning analysis depends on compatible qPCR cycler manufacturer, model, and software version; [0021, 0134]).
Regarding claim 9, Hren disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the first scientific device is configured to:
determine, upon completing executing the first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch, whether the first scientific device is connected to the one or more servers via a network (Hren disclose the components of the liquid handling system 100 may be directly connected or connected through network 108 which can be be wired and/or public or private network including a cellular network, a local area network, a wide area network such as internet, etc.; [0021-0022]. The Server 102 may send and receive signals through network 108 to/from the one or more liquid handlers 104 and/or to/from the one or more protocol creation devices 106; [0023]. The one or more liquid handlers104 may send and receive signals through network 108 to/from one or more protocol creation devices 106 and/or to/from sever 102; [0024]. Controller 600 of liquid handler 104/200 may send results obtained from a sample for storage on protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102; [0042]. The examiner notes that whether the first scientific device is connected to the one or more servers via the network would be determined upon completion of executing the first part of the selected laboratory application when the control 600 attempts to send results);
if the first scientific device is connected to the one or more servers: transmit the result signal to the one or more servers (Hren disclose controller 600 of liquid handler 104/200 may send results obtained from a sample for storage on protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102; [0042]); and
if the first scientific device is not connected to the one or more servers: periodically ping the one or more servers to determine whether the first scientific device has reestablished connectivity with the one or more servers; and upon reestablishing connectivity: transmit the result signal to the one or more servers (Hren disclose controller 600 of liquid handler 104/200 may send results obtained from a sample for storage on protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102; [0042]).
Note: “if the first scientific device is connected to the one or more servers: transmit the result signal to the one or more servers” and “if the first scientific device is not connected to the one or more servers: periodically ping the one or more servers to determine whether the first scientific device has reestablished connectivity with the one or more servers; and upon reestablishing connectivity: transmit the result signal to the one or more servers” are contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of method having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur (see MPEP 2111.04).
Regarding claim 10, Hren disclose the system of claim 1 above, the operations further comprising:
setting a production status of at least one laboratory application to in- production (Hren; fig. 16, #1512, “Ready”, [0080]), wherein laboratory applications that are in-production are accessible to both the lab administrator and lab operators (Hren; [0080]), and wherein laboratory applications that are not in-production are accessible to the lab administrator and not accessible to lab operators (Hren; fig. 16, #1512, “In editing”, [0080]).
Regarding claim 13, Hren disclose a machine-readable medium storing instructions (Hren disclose a liquid handling system 100 comprising computer readable medium 806 and database 812 of server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0021, 0058]) which, when executed by processing circuitry of one or more servers (Hren; processor 808 for server 102; figs. 1 & 8, [0058]), cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (Hren; database 812 may save, access, and retrieve protocol creation applications 712/810; figs. 7-8, [0063]);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory (Hren disclose one or more protocol creation devices 106/700 and one or more liquid handlers 104/200/600 configured to interface through network 108; figs. 1 & 7, [0021, 0042, 0047]), a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067]. When a user selects button 1006 “Manage qPCR analyses”, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 15 that allows the user to search, edit, or create files containing information for analyzing samples according to a protocol; figs. 14-26, [0078-0118]. When a user selects button 1008 “Create new qPCR experiment” or save button 2308 shown in fig. 23 after creating a new analysis, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 26 that allows the user to select batches of samples using button 2816 or button 2820 to be processed according to the selected protocol; figs. 26-36; [0119-0170]) and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (Hren disclose different users may access and edit one or more of the qPCR analyses listed in the qPCR analysis table 1502 using a computing device of protocol creation system 104. As a result, another user may not be able to edit a qPCR analysis for which the statis is “In editing”; fig. 16, [0080]);
receiving, via a web software platform (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712 implemented as a Web application; [0055]), one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067]. When a user selects button 1006 “Manage qPCR analyses”, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 15 that allows the user to search, edit, or create files containing information for analyzing samples according to a protocol; figs. 14-26, [0078-0118]. Different users may access and edit one or more of the qPCR analyses listed in the qPCR analysis table 1502 using a computing device of protocol creation system 104. As a result, another user may not be able to edit a qPCR analysis for which the statis is “In editing”; fig. 16, [0080]);
receiving via the web software platform a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset of the laboratory applications to process a batch (Hren disclose one or more liquid handlers 104/200 that comprise control 600 having a control application 610; figs. 1 & 6, [0021, 0037, 0045-0046]. The control application 610 and protocol creation application 712/810 are the same application supporting all of the same types of functionalities; [0062]. Execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]);
providing, in response to the request, one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using a scientific device, wherein the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (Hren disclose execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]. Hren disclose one or more liquid handlers 104 and assigning analysis depends on compatible qPCR cycler manufacturer, model, and software version; [0021, 0134]. Execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]); and
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing a first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration (Hren disclose the protocol includes a sequence of commands configured to control operation of one or more components of liquid handler 200; [0042]. Execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]. The control application 610 and protocol creation application 712/810 are the same application supporting all of the same types of functionalities; [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Hren disclose a method implemented at one or more servers (Hren disclose a liquid handling system 100; fig. 1, [0021] for implementing methods of figs. 9, 12, 14, 27 via server 102; [0016-0019]), the method comprising:
storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (Hren; database 812 may save, access, and retrieve protocol creation applications 712/810; figs. 7-8, [0063]);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory (Hren disclose one or more protocol creation devices 106/700 and one or more liquid handlers 104/200/600 configured to interface through network 108; figs. 1 & 7, [0021, 0042, 0047]), a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067]. When a user selects button 1006 “Manage qPCR analyses”, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 15 that allows the user to search, edit, or create files containing information for analyzing samples according to a protocol; figs. 14-26, [0078-0118]. When a user selects button 1008 “Create new qPCR experiment” or save button 2308 shown in fig. 23 after creating a new analysis, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 26 that allows the user to select batches of samples using button 2816 or button 2820 to be processed according to the selected protocol; figs. 26-36; [0119-0170]) and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (Hren disclose different users may access and edit one or more of the qPCR analyses listed in the qPCR analysis table 1502 using a computing device of protocol creation system 104. As a result, another user may not be able to edit a qPCR analysis for which the statis is “In editing”; fig. 16, [0080]);
receiving, via a web software platform (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712 implemented as a Web application; [0055]), one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (Hren disclose protocol creation application 712/810 comprises user interface window 1000; fig. 10, [0067]. When a user selects button 1006 “Manage qPCR analyses”, the user is presented with an interface window shown in fig. 15 that allows the user to search, edit, or create files containing information for analyzing samples according to a protocol; figs. 14-26, [0078-0118]. Different users may access and edit one or more of the qPCR analyses listed in the qPCR analysis table 1502 using a computing device of protocol creation system 104. As a result, another user may not be able to edit a qPCR analysis for which the statis is “In editing”; fig. 16, [0080]);
receiving via the web software platform a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset of the laboratory applications to process a batch (Hren disclose one or more liquid handlers 104/200 that comprise control 600 having a control application 610; figs. 1 & 6, [0021, 0037, 0045-0046]. The control application 610 and protocol creation application 712/810 are the same application supporting all of the same types of functionalities; [0062]. Execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]);
providing, in response to the request, one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using a scientific device, wherein the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (Hren disclose execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]. Hren disclose one or more liquid handlers 104 and assigning analysis depends on compatible qPCR cycler manufacturer, model, and software version; [0021, 0134]. Execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]); and
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing a first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration (Hren disclose the protocol includes a sequence of commands configured to control operation of one or more components of liquid handler 200; [0042]. Execution of a protocol received from protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 may be controlled by control application 610 either automatically when the protocol is received or under control of a user through an interface provided to allow the user to select the protocol for execution; [0046]. The control application 610 and protocol creation application 712/810 are the same application supporting all of the same types of functionalities; [0062]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hren and further in view of Haas et al. (US 2009/0247417 – hereinafter “Haas”).
Regarding claim 7, Hren disclose the system of claim 1 above, the operations further comprising:
receiving, upon completion of the selected laboratory application to process the batch, a result of the selected laboratory application to process the batch (Hren disclose the liquid handlers 104/200 send and receive signals through network 108 to/from the one or more protocol creation devices 106 and/or to/from server 102; [0024]. Controller 600 of liquid handlers 104/200 send results obtained for a sample for storage on protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 through controller output interface 602; [0041-0042]); and providing, to a lab operator client device, the result of the selected laboratory application to process the batch (Hren disclose the liquid handlers 104/200 send and receive signals through network 108 to/from the one or more protocol creation devices 106 and/or to/from server 102; [0024]. Controller 600 of liquid handlers 104/200 send results obtained for a sample for storage on protocol creation system 104 and/or server 102 through controller output interface 602; [0041-0042]).
Hren does not teach determining whether the result falls within a predefined range or and an indication whether the result falls within the predefined range.
However, Haas teach the analogous art of a system (Haas; fig. 1, #100, [0047]) to perform a laboratory application with a first scientific device (Haas teach an ADME-Tox workcell 110 for conducting experiments and an analyzer station 112 for analyzing and collecting data; fig. 1, [0048]), and determining whether the result falls within a predefined range and an indication whether the result falls within the predefined range (Haas teach a user may define acceptance criteria for an assay result that is above a threshold value, below a threshold value, or within an acceptance window; fig. 7, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Hren to comprise determining whether the result falls within a predefined range, as in Haas, because Haas teach the acceptance criteria is used to determine if a compound will advance to the next assay; fig. 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Hren and Haas both teach systems for performing an assay on a sample.
Regarding claim 8, modified Hren disclose the system of claim 7 above, wherein the result is received from the user while the first scientific device is offline (Hren disclose the components of the liquid handling system 100 may be directly connected or connected through network 108 which can be wired and/or public or private network including a cellular network, a local area network, a wide area network such as internet, etc.; [0021-0022]. Accordingly, the network being configured to receive results from the user while the first scientific device is offline).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hren and further in view of Dockrill et al. (US 2015/0300931 – hereinafter “Dockrill”).
Regarding claim 11, Hren disclose the system of claim 1 above, comprising the request to run the laboratory application to process the batch.
Hren does not teach wherein the request to run the laboratory application to process the batch comprises at least a scan of a container of a sample, the operations further comprising: identifying the sample based on the scan.
However, Dockrill teach the analogous art of a system (Dockrill; fig. 1, #12, [0052]) comprising one or more scientific devices (Dockrill; fig. 1, #10, [0052]) configured to run a laboratory application to process samples (Dockrill disclose instructions for a controller to treat samples; [0067]) wherein the system is configured to run the laboratory application to process the sample comprises at least a scan of a container of a sample, the operations further comprising: identifying the sample based on the scan (Dockrill disclose an indicia reader 44 which is disposed on the scientific device 10 and configured to read labels disposed on the sample container to receive information indicative of instructions for the controller to treat the sample; fig. 7, [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sample container and system of Hren to comprise a label and indicia reader, as in Dockrill, because Dockrill teach the label and indicia reader allow the scientific device to perform the laboratory application to process the sample based on instructions received from the label (Dockrill; [0067]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Hren and Dockrill both teach scientific devices configured to process a batch of samples.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hren disclose the system of claim 11 above, wherein identifying the sample comprises applying optical character recognition (OCR) to at least a portion of the scan (The modification of the sample container and system of Hren to comprise a label and indicia reader, as in Dockrill, has previously been discussed in claim 11 above. Dockrill teach the indicia reader applies optical character recognition; [0068]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/787,216 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 17/787,216 disclose:
Regarding claim 1, 17/787,216 disclose a system (17/787,216 – Claim 1) comprising:
processing circuitry of one or more servers (17/787,216 – Claim 1); and
a memory in communication with the processing circuitry, the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry (17/787,216 – Claim 1), cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (17/787,216 – Claim 1);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (17/787,216 – Claim 1);
receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (17/787,216 – Claim 1);
receiving via the web software platform a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset of the laboratory applications to process a batch (17/787,216 – Claim 1);
providing, in response to the request, one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using a scientific device (17/787,216 – Claim 1), wherein the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (17/787,216 – Claim 1); and
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing a first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration (17/787,216 – Claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 17/787,216 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 17/787,216 disclose:
Regarding claim 13, 17/787,216 disclose a machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by processing circuitry of one or more servers (17/787,216 – Claim 13), cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (17/787,216 – Claim 13);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (17/787,216 – Claim 13);
receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (17/787,216 – Claim 13);
receiving via the web software platform a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset of the laboratory applications to process a batch (17/787,216 – Claim 13);
providing, in response to the request, one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using a scientific device (17/787,216 – Claim 13), wherein the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (17/787,216 – Claim 13); and
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing a first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration 17/787,216 – Claim 13).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 17/787,216 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 17/787,216 disclose:
Regarding claim 14, 17/787,216 disclose a method implemented at one or more servers (17/787,216 – Claim 15), the method comprising:
storing, in the memory, a set of laboratory applications to process batches of samples (17/787,216 – Claim 15);
receiving, from a first lab administrator client device associated with a first laboratory, a selection of a first subset of the laboratory applications to process the batches of samples in the first laboratory and an admin configuration for at least one laboratory application in the first subset for use in the first laboratory (17/787,216 – Claim 15);
receiving, via a web software platform, one or more configurations of one or more batches to be used for running at least a portion of the first subset of laboratory applications configured according to the admin configuration (17/787,216 – Claim 15);
receiving via the web software platform a request to run a laboratory application from the first subset of the laboratory applications to process a batch (17/787,216 – Claim 15);
providing, in response to the request, one or more laboratory applications from the first subset that are capable of being executed using a scientific device, wherein the first scientific device is selected, by a user, from one or more scientific devices in the first laboratory (17/787,216 – Claim 15); and
transmitting, to the first scientific device, a control signal for executing a first part of the selected laboratory application to process the batch in accordance with the admin configuration (17/787,216 – Claim 15).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
Fava et al. (US 2002/0147515) disclose sample container handling device comprising an integrated barcode reader for identifying sample containers.
Noguchi et al. (US 2012/0144009) disclose a test system comprising a management server for receiving sample requests from a plurality of remote terminals and configuring a test device to perform the requested testing over a network.
Knafel et al. (US 2012/0109531) disclose an analysis system comprising two or more analysis system and a network that connects computers and control devices to the analysis system.
Campbell (US 2019/0004353) disclose a system and data management device configured to communicate with instruments and servers.
DeSimas et al. (US 2016/0086106) disclose a workflow application with software associated with a laboratory instrument to provide a user with instructions to follow a laboratory experiment.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798